ArticleBrain sciences2020
Mouse Tracking to Explore Motor Inhibition Processes in Go/No-Go and Stop Signal Tasks.
Article in Brain sciences, 2020. 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.
- Inhibitory control deficits in borderline personality disorder: a meta-analysis of stop-signal and Go/No-Go tasks.Psychological medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Neural Correlates of Inhibitory Control in Impulsivity Traits in Non-Ecological Human-Computer Tasks: An ALE Meta-Analysis.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Noshing on Chocolate, I Can Do That: Increased Chocolate Consumption in the Chocolate-Modified Bogus Taste Test With Better and Not Worse Inhibitory Control.European eating disorders review : the journal of the Eating Disorders Association · 2025Article
- Theta Burst TMS over the Pre-SMA Improves Inhibitory Control in Gambling Disorder Subjects as Assessed with Stop Signal Task.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Low-Frequency Oscillations in Mid-rostral Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Support Response Inhibition.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024Article
- Cultural Differences in Inhibitory Control: An ALE Meta-Analysis.Brain sciences · 2023Review
- Beyond Reactive Inhibition: Unpacking the Multifaceted Nature of Motor Inhibition.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Overlapping and unique brain responses to cognitive and response inhibition.Brain and cognition · 2023Article
- Intuitive thinking predicts false memory formation due to a decrease in inhibitory efficiency.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Article
- Effect of different sport environments on proactive and reactive motor inhibition: A study on open- and closed-skilled athletesFrontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Tracking Response Dynamics of Sequential Working Memory in Patients With Mild Parkinson's Disease.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Future Portrait of the Athletic Brain: Mechanistic Understanding of Human Sport PerformanceFrontiers in systems neuroscience · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Response inhibition relies on both proactive and reactive mechanisms that exert a synergic control on goal-directed actions. It is typically evaluated by the go/no-go (GNG) and the stop signal task (SST) with response recording based on the key-press method. However, the analysis of discrete variables (i.e., present or absent responses) registered by key-press could be insufficient to capture dynamic aspects of inhibitory control. Trying to overcome this limitation, in the present study we used a mouse tracking procedure to characterize movement profiles related to proactive and reactive inhibition. A total of fifty-three participants performed a cued GNG and an SST. The cued GNG mainly involves proactive control whereas the reactive component is mainly engaged in the SST. We evaluated the velocity profile from mouse trajectories both for responses obtained in the Go conditions and for inhibitory failures. Movements were classified as one-shot when no corrections were observed. Multi-peaked velocity profiles were classified as non-one-shot. A higher proportion of one-shot movements was found in the SST compared to the cued GNG when subjects failed to inhibit responses. This result suggests that proactive control may be responsible for unsmooth profiles in inhibition failures, supporting a differentiation between these tasks.
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.