Preprint

Motor Inhibition versus Interference Suppression: Neural and Behavioural Features of Action Monitoring and Error Processing

This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [What does this mean?].

Author(s) / Creator(s)

Porth, Elisa
Mattes, André
Stahl, Jutta

Abstract / Description

Action inhibition and error commission are prominent in everyday life. Inhibition comprises at least two facets: motor inhibition and interference suppression. When motor inhibition fails, a strong response impulse cannot be inhibited. When interference suppression fails, we become distracted by irrelevant stimuli. We investigated the neural and behavioural similarities and differences between motor inhibition errors and interference suppression errors systematically from stimulus-onset to post-response adaptation. To enable a direct comparison between both error types, we developed a complex speeded choice task where we assessed the error types in two perceptually similar conditions. Comparing the error types along the processing stream showed that the P2, an early component in the event-related potential associated with sensory gating, is the first marker for differences between the two error types. Further error-specific variations were found for the parietal P3 (associated with context updating and attentional resource allocation), for the lateralized readiness potential (LRP, associated with primary motor cortex activity), and for the Pe (associated with error evidence accumulation). For motor inhibition errors, the P2, P3 and Pe tended to be enhanced compared to successful inhibition. The LRP for motor inhibition errors was marked by multiple small response impulses. For interference suppression errors, all components were more similar to those of successful inhibition. Together, these findings suggest that motor inhibition errors arise from a deficient early inhibitory process at the perceptual and motor level, and become more apparent than interference suppression errors, that arise from an impeded response selection process.
Preprint for: Porth, E., Mattes, A. & Stahl, J. Motor inhibition errors and interference suppression errors differ systematically on neural and behavioural features of response monitoring. Sci Rep 14, 15966 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-66364-8

Keyword(s)

interference suppression motor inhibition error processing action monitoring event-related potential

Persistent Identifier

Date of first publication

2023-09-13

Publisher

PsychArchives

Citation

  • Author(s) / Creator(s)
    Porth, Elisa
  • Author(s) / Creator(s)
    Mattes, André
  • Author(s) / Creator(s)
    Stahl, Jutta
  • PsychArchives acquisition timestamp
    2023-09-13T13:14:48Z
  • Made available on
    2023-09-13T13:14:48Z
  • Date of first publication
    2023-09-13
  • Abstract / Description
    Action inhibition and error commission are prominent in everyday life. Inhibition comprises at least two facets: motor inhibition and interference suppression. When motor inhibition fails, a strong response impulse cannot be inhibited. When interference suppression fails, we become distracted by irrelevant stimuli. We investigated the neural and behavioural similarities and differences between motor inhibition errors and interference suppression errors systematically from stimulus-onset to post-response adaptation. To enable a direct comparison between both error types, we developed a complex speeded choice task where we assessed the error types in two perceptually similar conditions. Comparing the error types along the processing stream showed that the P2, an early component in the event-related potential associated with sensory gating, is the first marker for differences between the two error types. Further error-specific variations were found for the parietal P3 (associated with context updating and attentional resource allocation), for the lateralized readiness potential (LRP, associated with primary motor cortex activity), and for the Pe (associated with error evidence accumulation). For motor inhibition errors, the P2, P3 and Pe tended to be enhanced compared to successful inhibition. The LRP for motor inhibition errors was marked by multiple small response impulses. For interference suppression errors, all components were more similar to those of successful inhibition. Together, these findings suggest that motor inhibition errors arise from a deficient early inhibitory process at the perceptual and motor level, and become more apparent than interference suppression errors, that arise from an impeded response selection process.
    en
  • Abstract / Description
    Preprint for: Porth, E., Mattes, A. & Stahl, J. Motor inhibition errors and interference suppression errors differ systematically on neural and behavioural features of response monitoring. Sci Rep 14, 15966 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-66364-8
  • Publication status
    other
    en
  • Review status
    notReviewed
    en
  • Sponsorship
    This research was supported by the German Research Foundation (STA 1035/7-1) and by Cusanuswerk e.V. (scholarship provider).
    en
  • Persistent Identifier
    https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12034/8717
  • Persistent Identifier
    https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.13227
  • Language of content
    eng
    en
  • Publisher
    PsychArchives
    en
  • Is referenced by
    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-66364-8
  • Keyword(s)
    interference suppression
    en
  • Keyword(s)
    motor inhibition
    en
  • Keyword(s)
    error processing
    en
  • Keyword(s)
    action monitoring
    en
  • Keyword(s)
    event-related potential
    en
  • Dewey Decimal Classification number(s)
    150
  • Title
    Motor Inhibition versus Interference Suppression: Neural and Behavioural Features of Action Monitoring and Error Processing
    en
  • DRO type
    preprint
    en