From reactive to proactive and selective control: developing a richer model for stopping inappropriate responses

By Adam R. Aron. Biological Psychiatry, 2010

1,213 citations recorded by the source corpus.

A better understanding of the neural systems underlying impulse control is important for psychiatry. While most impulses are motivational or emotional rather than motoric per se, it is research into the neural architecture of motor response control that has made the greatest strides. This article reviews recent developments in the cognitive neuroscience of stopping responses. Most research of this kind has focused on reactive control – i.e. how subjects stop a response outright when instructed by a signal. It is argued that reactive paradigms are limited as models of control relevant to psychiatry. Instead, a set of paradigms is advocated that begins to model proactive inhibitory control – i.e. how a subject prepares to stop an upcoming response tendency. Proactive inhibitory control is generated according to the goals of the subject, rather than by an external signal, and it can be selectively targeted at a particular response tendency. This may have wider validity than reactive control as an experimental model for stopping inappropriate responses.

Subfields: Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience, Cognitive Neuroscience

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f38da1ab5e5c7939f9f238cce1d45852bbe279c0

How researchers see this paper

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

In Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience

In Cognitive Neuroscience

Citations in the corpus

Computational models of basal-ganglia pathway functions: focus on functional neuroanatomy (2013, background): “Along similar lines, the hyperdirect pathway has been hypothesized to globally inhibit prepared responses when a stop signal is shown before response execution (Aron and Poldrack, 2006; Aron, 2011; Wiecki and Frank, 2013).”
“Roles for the pre-supplementary motor area and the right inferior frontal gyrus in stopping action: electrophysiological responses and functional and structural connectivity” (2011, methodology): “…Magnetic Stimulation show that stopping an initiated response depends on the integrity of the right inferior frontal gyrus (rIFG) as well as the presupplementary motor area (preSMA) (reviewed by Aron, 2010; Chambers et al., 2009; Chikazoe, 2010; Levy and Wagner, 2011; Nachev et al., 2008).”
A computational model of inhibitory control in frontal cortex and basal ganglia. (2011, methodology): “Conversely, the stop-signal task (SST) requires outright response inhibition (e.g., Aron & Poldrack, 2006; Cohen & Poldrack, 2008; Logan & Cowan, 1984) and is used to assess global inhibitory control (Aron, 2011).”
Electroencephalography of response inhibition tasks: functional networks and cognitive contributions. (2013, background): “A great number of studies assessed the impact of real or virtual lesions of the fronto-basal ganglia networks on inhibition performance (see Aron, 2011).”
Executive Functions (2012, neutral): “…that seen in the attentional blink or negative priming) is dissociable from the volitional, effortful inhibitory control discussed here (Carr et al. 2006, Nigg et al. 2002), and although effortful inhibition declines with aging, it is unclear whether automatic inhibition does (Gamboz et al. 2002).”
A consensus guide to capturing the ability to inhibit actions and impulsive behaviors in the stop-signal task (2019, background): “A full overview of the stop-signal literature is beyond the scope of this study (but see e.g. Aron, 2011; Bari and Robbins, 2013; Chambers et al., 2009; Schall et al., 2017; Verbruggen and Logan, 2017, for comprehensive overviews of the clinical, neu- roscience, and cognitive stop-signal domains;…”
Impulsivity, compulsivity, and top-down cognitive control. (2011, neutral): “This conclusion has been controversial (Aron, 2010), given that some studies indicate a role for left frontal cortex also, and others argue that the relevant activations are a product of attentional rather than inhibitory processes, a reasonable argument because the stopping response is a reaction…”
Attentional Mechanisms of Distractor Suppression (2014, background): “Additionally, it has been argued that reactive mechanisms are more common than proactive ones because the continuous active maintenance of goalrelated information necessary for proactive suppression is metabolically expensive and cognitively taxing (Aron, 2011; Braver, Gray, & Burgess, 2007).”
Motor Interference, But Not Sensory Interference, Increases Midfrontal Theta Activity and Brain Synchronization during Reactive Control (2021, background): “Motor conflicts occur when we must deviate from a prepotent response pattern, such as when drivers need to hit the brakes because of an unexpected stop sign (Botvinick et al., 2004; Egner, 2008; Aron, 2011; Cohen, 2014a).”
Lateral prefrontal theta oscillations causally drive a computational mechanism underlying conflict expectation and adaptation (2024, unknown): “…ed that alteration in thisprocessingisacomponentofmultiplepathwaysthatcontributeto the development of symptomsin various neuropsychiatric disorders 5,6 such as attention de ﬁ cit hyperactivity disorder 7 , depression 8 , bipolar depression 9 , obsessive-compulsive disorder 10 , Parkinson ’ s…”