Skip to main content
Log in

The internal structure of stopping as revealed by a sensory detection task

  • Research Note
  • Published:
Experimental Brain Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An important aspect of everyday behaviour is the ability to cancel a prepared movement. In Experiment 1, subjects prepared a response, and then either executed it in response to a subsequent Go signal, or cancelled the movement if a NoGo signal occurred. Subjects had to detect weak shocks, which were delivered after the signals on some trials. Results were compared to a prior instruction condition in which subjects knew at the start of the trial if they should move or not. We found that detection rates on move trials were lower than on non-move trials, consistent with sensory suppression. There was no difference between conditions in detection for move trials. However, detection rates for non-move trials were significantly lower in the NoGo than in the prior instruction condition, suggesting an element of sensory suppression associated with actions, which are prepared, but then inhibited before execution. In Experiment 2, the delay between the NoGo signal and shock was varied. Detection rates improved monotonically as the interval increased from 0 up to 200 ms. The recovery from sensory suppression offers a new way of measuring the processes triggered by a NoGo signal. Our results suggest that when a prepared movement is inhibited the dismantling of the sensory consequences of the motor command takes at least 200 ms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aron AR, Poldrack RA (2006) Cortical and subcortical contributions to stop signal response inhibition: role of the subthalamic nucleus. J Neurosci 26(9):2424–2433

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Band GPH, Van der Molen MW, Logan GD (2003) Horse-race model simulations of the stop-signal procedure. Acta Psychol 112:105–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapin JK, Woodward DJ (1982) Somatic sensory transmission to the cortex during movement: gating of single cell responses to touch. Exp Neurol 78:654–669

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman CE, Bushnell MC, Miron D, Duncan GH, Lund JP (1987) Sensory perception during movement in man. Exp Brain Res 683:516–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Coxon JP, Stinear CM, Byblow WD (2007) Selective inhibition of movement. J Neurophysiol 97:2480–2489

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong R, Coles MG, Logan GD (1995) Strategies and mechanisms in nonselective and selective inhibitory motor control. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 21(3):498–511

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Duysens J, Tax AA, Nawijn S, Berger W, Prokop T, Altenmuller E (1995) Gating of sensation and evoked potentials following foot stimulation during human gait. Exp Brain Res 1053:423–431

    Google Scholar 

  • Haggard P, Whitford B (2004) Supplementary motor area provides an efferent signal for sensory suppression. Cogn Brain Res 191:52–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt H (1971) Transformed up–down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am 49(2):467–477

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Logan GD, Cowan WB, Davis KA (1984) On the ability to inhibit simple and choice reaction time responses: a model and a method. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 102:276–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Morein-Zamir S, Chua R, Franks IM, Nagelkerke P, Kingstone AF (2007) Predictability influences stopping and response control. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 33:149–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morein-Zamir S, Chua R, Franks IM, Nagelkerke P, Kingstone AF (2006) Measuring online volitional response control with a continuous tracking task. Behav Res Meth 38:638–647

    Google Scholar 

  • Rushton DN, Rothwell JC, Craggs MD (1981) Gating of somatosensory evoked-potentials during different kinds of movement in man. Brain 104(SEP):465–491

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Seki K, Perlmutter SI, Fetz EE (2003) Sensory input to primate spinal cord is presynaptically inhibited during voluntary movement. Nat Neurosci 612:1309–1316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voss M, Ingram JN, Haggard P, Wolpert DM (2006) Sensorimotor attenuation by central motor command signals in the absence of movement. Nat Neurosci 91:26–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams SR, Shenasa J, Chapman CE (1998) Time course and magnitude of movement-related gating of tactile detection in humans I. Importance of stimulus location J Neurophysiol 792:947–963

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

EW was supported by a BBSRC Research Committee Studentship: BBS/S/A/2004/11082. Further technical support was provided by an MRC Cooperative Group Grant: G9806600.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eamonn Walsh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Walsh, E., Haggard, P. The internal structure of stopping as revealed by a sensory detection task. Exp Brain Res 183, 405–410 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-007-1128-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-007-1128-4

Keywords

Navigation