| Autor: |
van den Wildenberg WPM; Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 129 B, 1018 WS Amsterdam, The Netherlands.; Amsterdam Brain and Cognition (ABC), University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 129 B, P.O. Box 15900, 1001 NK Amsterdam, The Netherlands., Ridderinkhof KR; Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 129 B, 1018 WS Amsterdam, The Netherlands.; Amsterdam Brain and Cognition (ABC), University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 129 B, P.O. Box 15900, 1001 NK Amsterdam, The Netherlands., Wylie SA; Department of Neurosurgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40202, USA. |
| Abstrakt: |
The aim of this selective review paper is to clarify potential confusion when referring to the term proactive inhibitory control. Illustrated by a concise overview of the literature, we propose defining reactive inhibition as the mechanism underlying stopping an action. On a stop trial, the stop signal initiates the stopping process that races against the ongoing action-related process that is triggered by the go signal. Whichever processes finishes first determines the behavioral outcome of the race. That is, stopping is either successful or unsuccessful in that trial. Conversely, we propose using the term proactive inhibition to explicitly indicate preparatory processes engaged to bias the outcome of the race between stopping and going. More specifically, these proactive processes include either pre-amping the reactive inhibition system (biasing the efficiency of the stopping process) or presetting the action system (biasing the efficiency of the go process). We believe that this distinction helps meaningful comparisons between various outcome measures of proactive inhibitory control that are reported in the literature and extends to experimental research paradigms other than the stop task. |
