Partial response electromyography as a marker of action stopping

  1. Liisa Raud  Is a corresponding author
  2. Christina Thunberg
  3. René J Huster
  1. University of Oslo, Norway

Abstract

Response inhibition is among the core constructs of cognitive control. It is notoriously difficult to quantify from overt behavior, since the outcome of successful inhibition is the lack of a behavioral response. Currently, the most common measure of action stopping, and by proxy response inhibition, is the model-based stop signal reaction time (SSRT) derived from the stop signal task. Recently, partial response electromyography (prEMG) has been introduced as a complementary physiological measure to capture individual stopping latencies. PrEMG refers to muscle activity initiated by the go signal that plummets after the stop signal before its accumulation to a full response. Whereas neither the SSRT nor the prEMG is an unambiguous marker for neural processes underlying response inhibition, our analysis indicates that the prEMG peak latency is better suited to investigate brain mechanisms of action stopping. This study is a methodological resource with a comprehensive overview of the psychometric properties of the prEMG in a stop signal task, and further provides practical tips for data collection and analysis.

Data availability

All data and analyses scripts are deposited in the Open Science Framework (Raud L, Thunberg C, Huster R. 2021. Partial response electromyography as a marker of action stopping. Data and analyses scripts. doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/RQNUJ).

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Liisa Raud

    Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
    For correspondence
    liisa.raud@psykologi.uio.no
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2355-4308
  2. Christina Thunberg

    Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. René J Huster

    Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Funding

The authors declare that there was no specific funding associated with this work.

Ethics

Human subjects: Participants gave written informed consent prior to data collection, and everyone received monetary compensation for their participation. The study was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki declaration, and was approved by the internal review board of the University of Oslo (ref. 1105078).

Copyright

© 2022, Raud et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 939
    views
  • 177
    downloads
  • 31
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Liisa Raud
  2. Christina Thunberg
  3. René J Huster
(2022)
Partial response electromyography as a marker of action stopping
eLife 11:e70332.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.70332

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.70332

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Victoria JH Ritvo, Alex Nguyen ... Kenneth A Norman
    Research Article

    What determines when neural representations of memories move together (integrate) or apart (differentiate)? Classic supervised learning models posit that, when two stimuli predict similar outcomes, their representations should integrate. However, these models have recently been challenged by studies showing that pairing two stimuli with a shared associate can sometimes cause differentiation, depending on the parameters of the study and the brain region being examined. Here, we provide a purely unsupervised neural network model that can explain these and other related findings. The model can exhibit integration or differentiation depending on the amount of activity allowed to spread to competitors — inactive memories are not modified, connections to moderately active competitors are weakened (leading to differentiation), and connections to highly active competitors are strengthened (leading to integration). The model also makes several novel predictions — most importantly, that when differentiation occurs as a result of this unsupervised learning mechanism, it will be rapid and asymmetric, and it will give rise to anticorrelated representations in the region of the brain that is the source of the differentiation. Overall, these modeling results provide a computational explanation for a diverse set of seemingly contradictory empirical findings in the memory literature, as well as new insights into the dynamics at play during learning.

    1. Neuroscience
    Marine Schimel, Ta-Chu Kao, Guillaume Hennequin
    Research Article

    During delayed ballistic reaches, motor areas consistently display movement-specific activity patterns prior to movement onset. It is unclear why these patterns arise: while they have been proposed to seed an initial neural state from which the movement unfolds, recent experiments have uncovered the presence and necessity of ongoing inputs during movement, which may lessen the need for careful initialization. Here, we modeled the motor cortex as an input-driven dynamical system, and we asked what the optimal way to control this system to perform fast delayed reaches is. We find that delay-period inputs consistently arise in an optimally controlled model of M1. By studying a variety of network architectures, we could dissect and predict the situations in which it is beneficial for a network to prepare. Finally, we show that optimal input-driven control of neural dynamics gives rise to multiple phases of preparation during reach sequences, providing a novel explanation for experimentally observed features of monkey M1 activity in double reaching.