Bridging the neural and algorithmic correlates of action-stopping
Jana, S.
Show abstract
Rapid stopping of actions is crucial for survival. The algorithm underlying action-stopping is often described using the independent race model, where the race between independent go- and stop-processes determines whether one is able to stop. However, it is unclear whether humans have neural correlates of these processes. Here, using scalp potentials from three studies, we show that the mu (8-13 Hz) desynchronization over the contralateral motor cortex follows the predictions of a go-process: the activity builds up till an action is made. We also show that the low beta (13-20 Hz) activity over the frontal areas follows the predictions of a stop-process: the activity builds up after the stop signal and prior to the stopping latency. Using these neural correlates, we observed that: 1) The failure to stop mostly results from a rapid go-process, 2) The go-process seems to be influenced by the stop-process during the late stages of action-stopping, 3) Intrinsic prefrontal beta activity has a retardive effect on movement, 4) Violations of independence assumption in the failed stop trials may result from the activity of the stop-process. Future studies may use these neural correlates to resolve the mimicry between models of action-stopping.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Neural repetition suppression modulates time perception: evidence from electrophysiology and pupillometry 96%
- The Electrophysiological Markers of Statistically Learned Attentional Enhancement: Evidence for a Saliency Based Mechanism 96%
- Differential and overlapping effects between exogenous and endogenous attention shape perceptual facilitation during visual processing 96%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.