The Journal of Korean Physical Therapy

The Korean Society of Physical Therapy (대한물리치료학회)
권호 표지

The Effect of Performance of a Stop Signal Task on the Execution and Stop Function of Movement

정지신호과제의 수행이 동작의 실행과 정지기능에 미치는 영향

  • Kwon, Jung-Won (Department of Rehabilitation Science, Graduate School, Daegu University) ;
  • Nam, Seok-Hyun (Department of Rehabilitation Science, Graduate School, Daegu University) ;
  • Kim, Chung-Sun (Department of Physical Therapy, College of Rehabilitation, Daegu University)
  • 권중원 (대구대학교 대학원 재활과학과) ;
  • 남석현 (대구대학교 대학원 재활과학과) ;
  • 김중선 (대구대학교 재활과학대학 물리치료학과)
  • Received : 2011.01.07
  • Accepted : 2011.02.07
  • Published : 2011.02.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: We studied the changes in motor response time and stop signal response time following visuomotor skill learning of a stop signal task in young healthy subjects. This study also was designed to determine what an effective practice is for different stop signals in the stop signal task (SST). Methods: Forty-five right-handed normal volunteers without a history of neurological dysfunction were recruited. They all gave written informed consent. In all subjects, motor reaction time (RT) and stop signal reaction time (SSRT) were measured for the stop signal task. Tasks were classified into three categories: predictable-stop signal task (P-SST) practice group random-stop signal task (R-SST) practice group control group. Results: Motor reaction time in the P-SST was significantly reduced when comparing pre- and post-tests (p<0.05). Stop signal reaction times in the P-SST and the R-SST were significantly reduced following motor skill learning (p<0.05). Also, the reaction time of the R-SST was shorter than that of the P-SST. Conclusion: These findings indicate that practice of an SST improves motor performance and stop function for some stop signals in the SST. P-SST practice was effective in the stop function of regular movement because of faster of the motor prediction and preparation but the R-SST was effective in the stop function of movements because of faster motor selection.

Keywords

References

  1. Duncan J, Owen AM. Common regions of the human frontal lobe recruited by diverse cognitive demands. Trends Neurosci. 2000;23(10):475-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-2236(00)01633-7
  2. Goghari VM, MacDonald AW, 3rd. The neural basis of cognitive control: Response selection and inhibition. Brain Cogn. 2009;71(2):72-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2009.04.004
  3. Aron AR. The neural basis of inhibition in cognitive control. Neuroscientist. 2007;13(3):214-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858407299288
  4. Miyake A, Friedman NP, Emerson MJ et al. The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex "Frontal lobe" Tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cogn Psychol. 2000;41(1):49-100. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
  5. Barkley RA. Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions: Constructing a unifying theory of adhd. Psychol Bull. 1997;121(1):65-94. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.65
  6. Logan GD. On the ability to inhibit thought and action: A user's guide to the stop signal paradigm. San Diego, Academic Press, 1994: Pages.
  7. Band GP, van der Molen MW, Logan GD. Horse-race model simulations of the stop-signal procedure. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2003;112(2):105-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(02)00079-3
  8. Verbruggen F, Logan GD. Response inhibition in the stop-signal paradigm. Trends Cogn Sci. 2008;12(11):418-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.005
  9. Verbruggen F, Liefooghe B, Vandierendonck A. Selective stopping in task switching: The role of response selection and response execution. Exp Psychol. 2006;53(1):48-57. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.53.1.48
  10. Verbruggen F, Logan GD. Models of response inhibition in the stop-signal and stop-change paradigms. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2009;33(5):647-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.08.014
  11. Won JY, Kim EJ. Validation of stop-signal task. Journal of Korean Psychological Association. 2008;27(1):217-34.
  12. hevrier AD, Noseworthy MD, Schachar R. Dissociation of response inhibition and performance monitoring in the stop signal task using event-related fmri. Hum Brain Mapp. 2007;28(12):1347-58. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20355
  13. Rubia K, Smith AB, Brammer MJ et al. Right inferior prefrontal cortex mediates response inhibition while mesial prefrontal cortex is responsible for error detection. Neuroimage. 2003;20(1):351-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00275-1
  14. van den Wildenberg WP, van Boxtel GJ, van der Molen MW et al. Stimulation of the subthalamic region facilitates the selection and inhibition of motor responses in parkinson's disease. J Cogn Neurosci. 2006;18(4):626-36. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.4.626
  15. Bekker EM, Overtoom CC, Kooij JJ et al. Disentangling deficits in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005;62(10):1129-36. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.62.10.1129
  16. Chamberlain SR, Fineberg NA, Blackwell AD et al. Motor inhibition and cognitive flexibility in obsessive-compulsive disorder and trichotillomania. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163(7): 1282-4. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.163.7.1282
  17. Enticott PG, Ogloff JR, Bradshaw JL. Response inhibition and impulsivity in schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res. 2008; 157(1-3):251-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2007.04.007
  18. Goudriaan AE, Oosterlaan J, de Beurs E et al. Neurocognitive functions in pathological gambling: A comparison with alcohol dependence, tourette syndrome and normal controls. Addiction. 2006;101(4):534-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01380.x
  19. Monterosso JR, Aron AR, Cordova X et al. Deficits in response inhibition associated with chronic methamphetamine abuse. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2005;79(2):273-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2005.02.002
  20. Nigg JT, Wong MM, Martel MM et al. Poor response inhibition as a predictor of problem drinking and illicit drug use in adolescents at risk for alcoholism and other substance use disorders. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2006; 45(4):468-75. 45(4):468-75. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.chi.0000199028.76452.a9
  21. Claffey MP, Sheldon S, Stinear CM et al. Having a goal to stop action is associated with advance control of specific motor representations. Neuropsychologia. 2010;48:541-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.10.015
  22. Jahfari S, Stinear CM, Claffey M et al. Responding with restraint: What are the neurocognitive mechanisms? J Cogn Neurosci. 2009;22(7):1479-92.
  23. Verbruggen F, Logan GD. Proactive adjustments of response strategies in the stop-signal paradigm. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2009;35(3):835-54. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012726
  24. Chikazoe J, Jimura K, Hirose S et al. Preparation to inhibit a response complements response inhibition during performance of a stop-signal task. J Neurosci. 2009; 29(50):15870-7. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3645-09.2009
  25. Verbruggen F, Logan GD. Automaticity of cognitive control: Goal priming in response-inhibition paradigms. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2009;35(5):1381-8. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016645
  26. Cohen JR, Poldrack RA. Automaticity in motor sequence learning does not impair response inhibition. Psychon Bull Rev. 2008;15(1):108-15. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.1.108
  27. Seger CA. Implicit learning. Psychol Bull. 1994;115(2): 163-96 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.163
  28. Lee MY, Park RJ, Nam KS. The effect of implicit motor sequence learning through perceptual-motor task in patients with subacute stroke. J Kor Soc Phys Ther. 2008;20(3):1-8. https://doi.org/10.1589/jpts.20.1
  29. Carter JD, Farrow M, Silberstein RB et al. Assessing inhibitory control: A revised approach to the stop signal task. J Atten Disord. 2003;6(4):153-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/108705470300600402
  30. Li CS, Zhang S, Duann JR et al. Gender differences in cognitive control: An extended investigation of the stop signal task. Brain Imaging Behav. 2009;3(3):262-76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11682-009-9068-1
  31. van der Schoot M, Licht R, Horsley TM et al. Effects of stop signal modality, stop signal intensity and tracking method on inhibitory performance as determined by use of the stop signal paradigm. Scand J Psychol. 2005; 46(4):331-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2005.00463.x
  32. Aron AR, Poldrack RA. Cortical and subcortical contributions to stop signal response inhibition: Role of the subthalamic nucleus. J Neurosci. 2006;26(9):2424-33. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4682-05.2006
  33. Rieger M, Gauggel S, Burmeister K. Inhibition of ongoing responses following frontal, nonfrontal, and basal ganglia lesions. Neuropsychology. 2003;17(2):272-82. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.17.2.272
  34. Seiss E, Praamstra P. The basal ganglia and inhibitory mechanisms in response selection: Evidence from subliminal priming of motor responses in parkinson's disease. Brain. 2004;127(Pt 2):330-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awh043