Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34493541›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2021

Common and Unique Inhibitory Control Signatures of Action-Stopping and Attentional Capture Suggest That Actions Are Stopped in Two Stages.

Joshua R Tatz, Cheol Soh, Jan R Wessel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
–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

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Common and Unique Neurophysiological Processes That Support the Stopping and Revising of Actions.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  13. Does the stop-signal P3 reflect inhibitory control?Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Biophysical Modeling of Frontocentral ERP Generation Links Circuit-Level Mechanisms of Action-Stopping to a Behavioral Race Model.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024
    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

3 authors.

Joshua R TatzDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52245.ORCID 0000-0002-6960-8909
Cheol SohDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52245.
Jan R WesselDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52245 Jan-wessel@uiowa.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-7298-6601

Funding

The Role of a Neural Mechanism for Inhibitory Control in Cognitive FlexibilityR01NS102201 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI WESSEL, JAN R · 2018 to 2022
$1.9M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS102201
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ability to stop an already initiated action is paramount to adaptive behavior. Much scientific debate in the field of human action-stopping currently focuses on two interrelated questions. (1) Which cognitive and neural processes uniquely underpin the implementation of inhibitory control when actions are stopped after explicit stop signals, and which processes are instead commonly evoked by all salient signals, even those that do not require stopping? (2) Why do purported (neuro)physiological signatures of inhibition occur at two different latencies after stop signals? Here, we address both questions via two preregistered experiments that combined measurements of corticospinal excitability, EMG, and whole-scalp EEG. Adult human subjects performed a stop signal task that also contained "ignore" signals: equally salient signals that did not require stopping but rather completion of the Go response. We found that both stop- and ignore signals produced equal amounts of early-latency inhibition of corticospinal excitability and EMG, which took place ∼150 ms following either signal. Multivariate pattern analysis of the whole-scalp EEG data further corroborated that this early processing stage was shared between stop- and ignore signals, as neural activity following the two signals could not be decoded from each other until a later time period. In this later period, unique activity related to stop signals emerged at frontocentral scalp sites, reflecting an increased stop signal P3. These findings suggest a two-step model of action-stopping, according to which an initial, universal inhibitory response to the saliency of the stop signal is followed by a slower process that is unique to outright stopping.

Indexed as

Inhibition, PsychologicalAdolescentAdultAttentionElectroencephalographyEvoked Potentials, MotorFemaleHumansMalePhotic StimulationPsychomotor PerformanceReaction TimeYoung Adultattentional captureEEGEMGinhibitory controlmotor inhibitionstop signal task

Identifiers

PMID34493541
PMCPMC8528501

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.