ArticleThe European journal of neuroscience2025
When Stopping Requires Going: Physiological Similarities Between Action Cancellation and the Cancellation of Action Cancellation.
Article in The European journal of neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Has stopping stopped making sense? Disentangling the processes elicited by complex action cancellation paradigms.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026Review
- When Stopping Requires Going: Physiological Similarities Between Action Cancellation and the Cancellation of Action Cancellation.The European journal of neuroscience · 2025Article
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
The reactive cancellation of real-world actions typically requires complex combinations of both muscle contraction and/or muscle suppression. However, current experimental paradigms solely examine contexts in which action cancellation requires muscle suppression. To provide fundamental insights into inhibitory control mechanisms, we directly compared the latency of action cancellation in novel paradigms where 'stopping' required either suppression of planned activation or reinstatement of ongoing activity. Twenty healthy adults (mean age = 32.2 years) completed novel variants of the stop signal task (SST) in which each trial began with tonic force production to depress two buttons. When a go signal appeared, participants were required to release these buttons. On a subset of trials, a stop signal occurred after a brief delay, and participants were required to cancel the release of one of the buttons. Data in these variants were compared to conventional response-selective SSTs, in which the go signal required bilateral button presses and stop signals necessitated the cancellation of one of these responses. Electromyographic (EMG) recordings allowed a detailed comparison of the characteristics of muscle contraction and suppression (i.e., stopping speed) across these tasks. When physiological evidence of synchronous action cancellation in both hands was observed (supporting recent models of complex stopping), EMG measures of action cancellation speed did not differ (p = 0.863, BF
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.