ArticleBehavior research methods2024
Measuring the nonselective effects of motor inhibition using isometric force recordings.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Has stopping stopped making sense? Disentangling the processes elicited by complex action cancellation paradigms.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026Review
- Stopping Muscle Contractions and Relaxations during Action Inhibition Involves Global and Targeted Control Dependent on Muscle State.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- Examining motor evidence for the pause-then-cancel model of action-stopping: insights from motor system physiology.Journal of neurophysiology · 2024Article
- Examining motor evidence for the pause-then-cancel model of action-stopping: Insights from motor system physiology.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- A Cortical Mechanism Linking Saliency Detection and Motor Reactivity in Rhesus Monkeys.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024Article
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
Abstract
Inhibition is a key cognitive control mechanism humans use to enable goal-directed behavior. When rapidly exerted, inhibitory control has broad, nonselective motor effects, typically demonstrated using corticospinal excitability measurements (CSE) elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). For example, during rapid action-stopping, CSE is suppressed at both stopped and task-unrelated muscles. While such TMS-based CSE measurements have provided crucial insights into the fronto-basal ganglia circuitry underlying inhibitory control, they have several downsides. TMS is contraindicated in many populations (e.g., epilepsy or deep-brain stimulation patients), has limited temporal resolution, produces distracting auditory and haptic stimulation, is difficult to combine with other imaging methods, and necessitates expensive, immobile equipment. Here, we attempted to measure the nonselective motor effects of inhibitory control using a method unaffected by these shortcomings. Thirty male and female human participants exerted isometric force on a high-precision handheld force transducer while performing a foot-response stop-signal task. Indeed, when foot movements were successfully stopped, force output at the task-irrelevant hand was suppressed as well. Moreover, this nonselective reduction of isometric force was highly correlated with stop-signal performance and showed frequency dynamics similar to established inhibitory signatures typically found in neural and muscle recordings. Together, these findings demonstrate that isometric force recordings can reliably capture the nonselective effects of motor inhibition, opening the door to many applications that are hard or impossible to realize with TMS.
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.