Vocal response inhibition is enhanced by anodal tDCS over the right prefrontal cortex
- 385 Downloads
Stopping outright (reactive inhibition) and slowing down (proactive inhibition) are types of response inhibition which have mainly been investigated in the manual effector system. This study compared reactive inhibition across manual and vocal effector systems, examined the effects of excitatory anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (anodal tDCS) over the right prefrontal cortex (right-PFC) and looked at the relationship between reactive and proactive inhibition. We hypothesised (1) that vocal reactive inhibition would be less effective than manual reactive inhibition as evidenced by longer stop signal reaction times; (2) that anodal tDCS would enhance both vocal and manual reactive inhibitions and (3) that proactive and reactive inhibitions would be positively related. We tested 14 participants over two sessions (one session with anodal tDCS and one session with sham stimulation) and applied stimulation protocol in the middle of the session, i.e. only during the second of three phases. We used a stop signal task across two stop conditions: relevant and irrelevant stop conditions in which stopping was required or ignored, respectively. We found that reactive inhibition was faster during and immediately after anodal tDCS relative to sham. We also found that greater level of proactive inhibition enhanced reactive inhibition (indexed by shorter stop signal reaction times). These results support the hypothesis that the right-PFC is part of a core network for reactive inhibition and supports previous contention that proactive inhibition is possibly modulated via preactivating the reactive inhibition network.
KeywordsAnodal tDCS Vocal inhibition Stop signal task Response inhibition Reactive inhibition and proactive inhibition
This research was supported by Macquarie University Research Excellence Scholarships (MQRES), National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia (#1003760), and the Australian Research Council (DE130100868).
LCM and PFS designed the experiments, collected and analysed the data. LCM, PFS and BWJ wrote the manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Castro-Meneses LJ, Johnson BW, Sowman PF (2015) The effects of impulsivity and proactive inhibition on reactive inhibition and the go process: insights from vocal and manual stop signal tasks. Front Hum Neurosci 9. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00529
- Cruccu G, Inghilleri M, Berardelli A, Romaniello A, Manfredi M (1997) Cortical mechanisms mediating the inhibitory period after magnetic stimulation of the facial motor area. Muscle Nerve 20(4):418–424. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4598(199704)20:4<418:AID-MUS3>3.0.CO;2-D PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Giglia G, Brighina F, Rizzo S, Puma A, Indovino S, Maccora S, Fierro B (2014) Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex enhances memory-guided responses in a visuospatial working memory task. Funct Neurol 29(3):189–193PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Glass JM, Williams DA, Fernandez-Sanchez M-L, Kairys A, Barjola P, Heitzeg MM, Schmidt-Wilcke T (2011) Executive function in chronic pain patients and healthy controls: different cortical activation during response inhibition in fibromyalgia. J Pain 12(12):1219–1229. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2011.06.007 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jasper HH (1958) The ten-twenty electrode system of the International Federation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 10:371–375Google Scholar
- Logan GD (1994) On the ability to inhibit thought and action: a users’ guide to the stop signal paradigm. In: Dagenbach D, Carr TH (eds) Inhibitory processes in attention, memory, and language. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 189–239Google Scholar
- Luschei ES, Goldberg LJ (2011) Neural mechanisms of mandibular control: Mastication and voluntary biting. Compr Physiol. John Wiley & Sons, IncGoogle Scholar