Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28085907›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

An Activation Threshold Model for Response Inhibition.

Hayley J MacDonald, Angus J C McMorland, Cathy M Stinear, James P Coxon, Winston D Byblow

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Proactive Interhemispheric Disinhibition Supports Response Preparation during Selective Stopping.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Stopping Interference in Response Inhibition: Behavioral and Neural Signatures of Selective Stopping.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2022
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Hayley J MacDonaldMovement Neuroscience Laboratory, Department of Sport & Exercise Science, University of Auckland, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand.
Angus J C McMorlandMovement Neuroscience Laboratory, Department of Sport & Exercise Science, University of Auckland, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand.
Cathy M StinearCentre for Brain Research, University of Auckland, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand.
James P CoxonSchool of Psychological Sciences and Monash Institute of Cognitive and Clinical Neurosciences, Monash University, Melbourne, 3800, Australia.
Winston D ByblowMovement Neuroscience Laboratory, Department of Sport & Exercise Science, University of Auckland, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reactive response inhibition (RI) is the cancellation of a prepared response when it is no longer appropriate. Selectivity of RI can be examined by cueing the cancellation of one component of a prepared multi-component response. This substantially delays execution of other components. There is debate regarding whether this response delay is due to a selective neural mechanism. Here we propose a computational activation threshold model (ATM) and test it against a classical "horse-race" model using behavioural and neurophysiological data from partial RI experiments. The models comprise both facilitatory and inhibitory processes that compete upstream of motor output regions. Summary statistics (means and standard deviations) of predicted muscular and neurophysiological data were fit in both models to equivalent experimental measures by minimizing a Pearson Chi-square statistic. The ATM best captured behavioural and neurophysiological dynamics of partial RI. The ATM demonstrated that the observed modulation of corticomotor excitability during partial RI can be explained by nonselective inhibition of the prepared response. The inhibition raised the activation threshold to a level that could not be reached by the original response. This was necessarily followed by an additional phase of facilitation representing a secondary activation process in order to reach the new inhibition threshold and initiate the executed component of the response. The ATM offers a mechanistic description of the neural events underlying RI, in which partial movement cancellation results from a nonselective inhibitory event followed by subsequent initiation of a new response. The ATM provides a framework for considering and exploring the neuroanatomical constraints that underlie RI.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalAdultEvoked Potentials, MotorFemaleHumansMaleMotor CortexMovementNeural InhibitionPsychomotor PerformanceReaction TimeTranscranial Magnetic StimulationYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID28085907
PMCPMC5235378

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.