Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36845879›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2023

Restart errors reaction time of a two-step inhibition process account for the violation of the race model's independence in multi-effector selective stop signal task.

Isabel Beatrice Marc, Valentina Giuffrida, Surabhi Ramawat, Lorenzo Fiori, Roberto Fontana, Giampiero Bardella, Sabrina Fagioli, Stefano Ferraina, Pierpaolo Pani, Emiliano Brunamonti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

10 authors.

Isabel Beatrice MarcDepartment of Physiology and Pharmacology, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Valentina GiuffridaDepartment of Physiology and Pharmacology, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Surabhi RamawatDepartment of Physiology and Pharmacology, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Lorenzo FioriDepartment of Physiology and Pharmacology, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Roberto FontanaDepartment of Physiology and Pharmacology, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Giampiero BardellaDepartment of Physiology and Pharmacology, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Sabrina FagioliDepartment of Education, University of Roma Tre, Rome, Italy.
Stefano FerrainaDepartment of Physiology and Pharmacology, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Pierpaolo PaniDepartment of Physiology and Pharmacology, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Emiliano BrunamontiDepartment of Physiology and Pharmacology, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Goal-oriented actions often require the coordinated movement of two or more effectors. Sometimes multi-effector movements need to be adjusted according to a continuously changing environment, requiring stopping an effector without interrupting the movement of the others. This form of control has been investigated by the selective Stop Signal Task (SST), requiring the inhibition of an effector of a multicomponent action. This form of selective inhibition has been hypothesized to act through a two-step process, where a temporary global inhibition deactivating all the ongoing motor responses is followed by a restarting process that reactivates only the moving effector. When this form of inhibition takes place, the reaction time (RT) of the moving effector pays the cost of the previous global inhibition. However, it is poorly investigated if and how this cost delays the RT of the effector that was required to be stopped but was erroneously moved (Stop Error trials). Here we measure the Stop Error RT in a group of participants instructed to simultaneously rotate the wrist and lift the foot when a Go Signal occurred, and interrupt both movements (non-selective Stop version) or only one of them (selective Stop version) when a Stop Signal was presented. We presented this task in two experimental conditions to evaluate how different contexts can influence a possible proactive inhibition on the RT of the moving effector in the selective Stop versions. In one context, we provided the foreknowledge of the effector to be inhibited by presenting the same selective or non-selective Stop versions in the same block of trials. In a different context, while providing no foreknowledge of the effector(s) to be stopped, the selective and non-selective Stop versions were intermingled, and the information on the effector to be stopped was delivered at the time of the Stop Signal presentation. We detected a cost in both Correct and Error selective Stop RTs that was influenced by the different task conditions. Results are discussed within the framework of the race model related to the SST, and its relationship with a restart model developed for selective versions of this paradigm.

Indexed as

effectors couplingexecutive controlmotor inhibitionrace model violationselective stop signal task

Identifiers

PMID36845879
PMCPMC9950112

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.