↓ Skip to main content

Reconciling the influence of task-set switching and motor inhibition processes on stop signal after-effects

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Reconciling the influence of task-set switching and motor inhibition processes on stop signal after-effects
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00649
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joaquin A. Anguera, Kyle Lyman, Theodore P. Zanto, Jacob Bollinger, Adam Gazzaley

Abstract

Executive response functions can be affected by preceding events, even if they are no longer associated with the current task at hand. For example, studies utilizing the stop signal task have reported slower response times to "GO" stimuli when the preceding trial involved the presentation of a "STOP" signal. However, the neural mechanisms that underlie this behavioral after-effect are unclear. To address this, behavioral and electroencephalography (EEG) measures were examined in 18 young adults (18-30 years) on "GO" trials following a previously "Successful Inhibition" trial (pSI), a previously "Failed Inhibition" trial (pFI), and a previous "GO" trial (pGO). Like previous research, slower response times were observed during both pSI and pFI trials (i.e., "GO" trials that were preceded by a successful and unsuccessful inhibition trial, respectively) compared to pGO trials (i.e., "GO" trials that were preceded by another "GO" trial). Interestingly, response time slowing was greater during pSI trials compared to pFI trials, suggesting executive control is influenced by both task set switching and persisting motor inhibition processes. Follow-up behavioral analyses indicated that these effects resulted from between-trial control adjustments rather than repetition priming effects. Analyses of inter-electrode coherence (IEC) and inter-trial coherence (ITC) indicated that both pSI and pFI trials showed greater phase synchrony during the inter-trial interval compared to pGO trials. Unlike the IEC findings, differential ITC was present within the beta and alpha frequency bands in line with the observed behavior (pSI > pFI > pGO), suggestive of more consistent phase synchrony involving motor inhibition processes during the ITI at a regional level. These findings suggest that between-trial control adjustments involved with task-set switching and motor inhibition processes influence subsequent performance, providing new insights into the dynamic nature of executive control.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 4%
Japan 1 1%
Unknown 65 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 23%
Researcher 12 17%
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Professor 6 9%
Other 14 20%
Unknown 6 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 28 41%
Neuroscience 11 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 10%
Engineering 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 9 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 September 2013.
All research outputs
#18,348,542
of 22,723,682 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#21,934
of 29,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,065
of 280,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#831
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,723,682 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,536 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,763 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.