Validity expectancies shape the interplay of cueing and task demands during inhibitory control associated with right inferior frontal regions
The neural mechanisms of inhibitory control have extensively been studied, including the effects of demands to engage in inhibitory control and the effects of valid and invalid cueing. Theoretical considerations, however, suggest that the aforementioned factors exert joined effects on response inhibition processes that are further modulated by the subject’s experience about the reliability of cue stimuli during response inhibition processes. To examine the underlying neurophysiological processes of these interactive effects we combined EEG signal decomposition with sLORETA source localization. We show that response inhibition performance is modulated by interactive effects between (1) cue information/validity, (2) demands on inhibitory control processes and (3) the subject’s experience that cue information is valid/invalid during response inhibition processes. Only if demands on inhibitory control processes are high and when participants acquainted the experience that cue information is very likely to be valid, invalid cue information compromised response inhibition performance. The neurophysiological data show that processes in the N2 time window, likely reflecting braking processes, but not stimulus-related processes during response inhibition, are modulated. It seems that braking processes cannot be sufficiently deployed if cue information that has been experienced to be highly valid turns out to be invalid in situations placing high demands on inhibitory control. Source localization data reveals that the interactive effects of the examined factors specifically modulate processes in the right inferior frontal gyrus (BA47). This provides electrophysiological evidence that the rIFG is a hub region integrating different factors modulating inhibitory control.
KeywordsResponse inhibition Inferior frontal gyrus EEG Source localization
This work was supported by a Grant from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) BE4045/26-1 to C.B.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
The study was approved by the IRB of the TU Dresden.
Written informed consent was obtained from all subject before any of the study’s procedures were commenced.
- Beste C, Willemssen R, Saft C, Falkenstein M (2010) Response inhibition subprocesses and dopaminergic pathways: basal ganglia disease effects. Neuropsychologia 48:366–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.09.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bodmer B, Mückschel M, Roessner V, Beste C (2018) Neurophysiological variability masks differences in functional neuroanatomical networks and their effectiveness to modulate response inhibition between children and adults. Brain Struct Funct 223:1797–1810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-017-1589-6 Google Scholar
- Dippel G, Mückschel M, Ziemssen T, Beste C (2017) Demands on response inhibition processes determine modulations of theta band activity in superior frontal areas and correlations with pupillometry—implications for the norepinephrine system during inhibitory control. NeuroImage 157:575–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.06.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ouyang G, Hildebrandt A, Sommer W, Zhou C (2017) Exploiting the intra-subject latency variability from single-trial event-related potentials in the P3 time range: a review and comparative evaluation of methods. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 75:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.01.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pascual-Marqui RD (2002) Standardized low-resolution brain electromagnetic tomography (sLORETA): technical details. Methods Find Exp Clin Pharmacol 24(Suppl D):5–12Google Scholar
- Raftery AE (1995) Bayesian model selection in social research. In: Mardsen PV (ed) Sociological methodology. Blackwell, Cambridge, pp 11–196Google Scholar
- Simmonds DJ, Pekar JJ, Mostofsky SH (2008) Meta-analysis of Go/No-go tasks demonstrating that fMRI activation associated with response inhibition is task-dependent. Neuropsychologia 46:224–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.07.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar