ArticlePsychophysiology2022
Neural correlates of unpredictable Stop and non-Stop cues in overt and imagined execution.
Article in Psychophysiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neural representation of proactive and reactive inhibitory control adaptations across sensory modalities.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025Article
- 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 · 2025Article
- Does the stop-signal P3 reflect inhibitory control?Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2025Review
- Neural correlates of unpredictable Stop and non-Stop cues in overt and imagined execution.Psychophysiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ability to inhibit incorrect behaviors is crucial for survival. In real contexts, cues that require stopping usually appear intermixed with indications to continue the ongoing action. However, in the classical Stop-signal task (SST), the unpredictable stimuli are always signals that require inhibition. To understand the neural mechanisms activated by low-probability nonstop cues, we recorded the electroencephalography from 23 young volunteers while they performed a modified SST where the unpredictable stimuli could be either Stop or confirmatory Go signals (CGo). To isolate the influence of motor output, the SST was performed during overt and covert execution. We found that, paradoxically, CGo stimuli activated motor inhibition processes, and evoked patterns of brain activity similar to those obtained after Stop signals (N2/P3 event-related potentials and midfrontal theta power increase), though in lesser magnitude. These patterns were also observed during the imagined performance. Finally, applying machine learning procedures, we found that the brain activity evoked after CGo versus Stop signals can be classified above chance during both, overt and imagined execution. Our results provide evidence that unpredictable signals cause motor inhibition even when they require to continue an ongoing action.
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.