ReviewFrontiers in psychology2019
Motor Preparation for Action Inhibition: A Review of Single Pulse TMS Studies Using the Go/NoGo Paradigm.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Do sounds near the hand facilitate tactile reaction times? Four experiments and a meta-analysis provide mixed support and suggest a small effect size.Experimental brain research · 2020Pooled it
- Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) Over the Primary Motor Cortex (M1) Enhances Motor Response Inhibition and Visual Recognition Memory.Medical science monitor basic research · 2022Trial
- Applications and potential mechanisms of transcranial magnetic stimulation in autism spectrum disorders.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- Motor Intention Drives Corticospinal Facilitation during Interception Planning.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Muscle bursting and corticomotor excitability mark impaired impulse control in Parkinson's disease.NPJ Parkinson's disease · 2025Article
- Aberrant preparation of hand movement in schizophrenia spectrum disorder: an fMRI study.Brain communications · 2025Article
- Does neck flexion improve performance? Effects on reaction time depend on whether responses are expected.SN applied sciences · 2023Article
- Challenging inhibitory control with high- and low-calorie food: A behavioural and TMS study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2023Article
- Multi-scale and cross-dimensional TMS mapping: A proof of principle in patients with Parkinson's disease and deep brain stimulation.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Correlates and clinical implications of tic suppressibility.Current developmental disorders reports · 2021Article
- Preparing to React: A Behavioral Study on the Interplay between Proactive and Reactive Action Inhibition.Brain sciences · 2021Article
- The effect of motor engagement on memory: Testing a motor-induced encoding account.Memory & cognition · 2021Article
- Individual differences in intracortical inhibition predict motor-inhibitory performance.Experimental brain research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human behavior must be flexible to respond to environmental and social demands, and to achieve these goals, it requires control. For instance, inhibitory control is used to refrain from executing unwanted or anticipated responses to environmental stimuli. When inhibitory mechanisms are inefficient due to some pathological conditions, such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or pathological gambling, patients show a reduced capability of refraining from executing actions. When planning to execute an action, various inhibitory control mechanisms are activated to prevent the unwanted release of impulses and to ensure that the correct response is produced. A great body of research has used various cognitive tasks to isolate one or more components of inhibitory control (e.g., response selectivity) and to investigate their neuronal underpinnings. However, inter-individual differences in behavior are rarely properly considered, although they often represent a considerable source of noise in the data. In the present review, we will address this issue using the specific case of action inhibition, presenting the results of studies that coupled the so-called Go/NoGo paradigm with non-invasive brain stimulation to directly test the effects of motor inhibition on the excitability of the corticospinal system (CSE). Motor preparation is rarely measured in action inhibition studies, and participants' compliancy to the task's requests is often assumed rather than tested. Single pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a powerful tool to directly measure CSE, whose responsivity depends on both excitatory and inhibitory processes. However, when motor preparation is not measured and the task design does not require participants to prepare responses in advance, fluctuations in CSE levels can be mistaken for active inhibition. One way to isolate motor preparation is to use a carefully designed task that allows to control for excessive variability in the timing of activation of inhibitory control mechanisms. Here, we review single pulse TMS studies that have used variants of the Go/NoGo task to investigate inhibitory control functions in healthy participants. We will identify the specific strategies that likely induced motor preparation in participants, and their results will be compared to current theories of action inhibition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.