Response inhibition in the stop-signal paradigm

By Frederick Verbruggen, Gordon D. Logan. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2008

1,369 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Response inhibition is a hallmark of executive control. The concept refers to the suppression of no-longer required or inappropriate actions, which supports flexible and goal-directed behavior in ever-changing environments. The stop-signal paradigm is most suitable for the study of response inhibition in a laboratory setting. The paradigm has become increasingly popular in cognitive psychology, cognitive neuroscience and psychopathology. We review recent findings in the stop-signal literature with the specific aim of demonstrating how each of these different fields contributes to better understanding of the processes involved in inhibiting a response and monitoring stopping performance, and more generally, discovering how behavior is controlled.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/aaa995406271ab4dc3ad35f4dcc3aba0c651eaab

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

Citations in the corpus

Dual mechanisms of cognitive control in bilinguals and monolinguals (2013, methodology): “The stop-signal reaction time (SSRT) is computed as a measure of inhibitory efficiency (Verbruggen & Logan, 2008).”
Storage capacity explains fluid intelligence but executive control does not (2012, background): “Also, Friedman et al. (2006) found no significant correlation between another hallmark test of inhibition, a stop-signal task (Verbruggen & Logan, 2008), and two measures of Gf.”
NeuroVault.org: a web-based repository for collecting and sharing unthresholded statistical maps of the human brain (2014, background): “This cognitive concept involves interrupting a prepared or ongoing response to a stimuli as a result of being presented with new information (for review see (Verbruggen and Logan, 2008)).”
Individual Differences in Heart Rate Variability Predict the Degree of Slowing during Response Inhibition and Initiation in the Presence of Emotional Stimuli (2011, neutral): “Go and Stop process of the horse-race model (Logan and Cowan, 1984; Verbruggen and Logan, 2008b).”
Electroencephalography of response inhibition tasks: functional networks and cognitive contributions. (2013, background): “In addition, the relative need for either automatic or controlled response inhibition processes (e.g., Verbruggen and Logan, 2008a; Aron, 2011) in a given task context might turn out to be a crucial factor.”
Quantitative Review Finds No Evidence of Cognitive Effects in Healthy Populations From Single-session Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS). (2015, background): “This task is ameasure of automatic response inhibition [6].”
The consequences of media multitasking for youth: A review (2015, positive): “…the ability to temporarily store and retain information, Jeneson & Squire, 2012), (4) sustained attention (i.e., the ability to focus attention on the primary task, Cain & Mitroff, 2011), and (5) response inhibition (i.e., the ability to withhold a response if necessary, Verbruggen & Logan, 2008).”
A computational model of inhibitory control in frontal cortex and basal ganglia. (2011, background): “In contrast, while also requiring response inhibition, the well-studied stop-signal task does not require subsequent initiation of an active response but only outright inhibition of the planned response (Verbruggen & Logan, 2008).”
Are the neural correlates of stopping and not going identical? Quantitative meta-analysis of two response inhibition tasks (2011, methodology): “Verbruggen and Logan (2008a) have emphasized the differences between the tasks along another dimension, based on differential recruitment of automatic vs. controlled response inhibition processes.”
Models of Response Inhibition in the Stop-Signal and Stop-Change Paradigms (2008, methodology): “…of the right key; e.g., Brown and Braver, 2005; Nachev et al., 2007); in other studies, subjects responded to the identity of the stop-change signal (e.g., discriminating whether the stop-change signal was a high or a low tone; De Jong et al., 1995; Logan, 1983, 1985b; Verbruggen and Logan, 2008a).”
The role of the right inferior frontal gyrus: inhibition and attentional control (2010, background): “…studies that have reported a role for the RIFG in the inhibition of pre-potent responses during the GNG and SST paradigms (Menon et al., 2001, van Boxtel et al., 2001, Aron et al., 2003a, Aron et al., 2003b, Rubia et al., 2003, Aron et al., 2004, Picton et al., 2007, Verbruggen and Logan, 2008).”
Task switching: interplay of reconfiguration and interference control. (2010, methodology): “First, task switching may call on the same kind of control processes as do other multitasking procedures, such as the stop-signal procedure (Logan & Cowan, 1984; Verbruggen & Logan, 2008) and the PRP paradigm (e.g., Pashler, 1994; Telford, 1931; Welford, 1952).”