Temporal Characteristics of the Three Stages of Intentional Inhibition

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20240602

Abstract

Abstract: Behavioral inhibition can be categorized into reactive inhibition and intentional inhibition. Several studies have used the free-choice task (e.g., the Go/No-go/Choose task) to investigate the temporal dynamics of intentional inhibition, but have reported inconsistent findings. The present study aims to develop a novel task (i.e., the Free Two-Choice Oddball Task) and re-evaluate the temporal dynamics of intentional inhibition.
Thirty-seven female undergraduates were recruited to perform the Free Two-Choice Oddball task, in which free choice trials were integrated with conventional Two-Choice Oddball task (including Reactive Standard trials and Reactive Deviant trials). They were asked to press button “1” for Reactive Standard trials, button “2” for Reactive Deviant trials, and intentionally choose to press button “1” or “2” for free choice trials. To ensure a prepotent drive to press button “1”, the Reactive Standard trials, Reactive Deviant trials, and Intentional trials (i.e., free choice trials) were set at a ratio of 4:1:2. In formal task, 714 trials were divided into 6 blocks of 119 trials each. Behavioral data and event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded while participants performing the task. For ERP data, N2 and P3 components were focused. For N2, the fronto-central electrodes (Fz, FC1, FC2, FCz, Cz) were selected as the region of interest, and the average amplitudes were measured in the 240~300 ms time window. For P3, the central-parietal electrodes (C1, C2, Cz, CP1, CP2, CPz, P1, P2, Pz) were selected, the early P3 amplitudes were measured in the 300~440 ms time window, and the late P3 amplitudes were measured in the 460~700 ms time window. Moreover, to further differentiate between early and late P3 components, a temporal principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted, the electrodes are the same as above, and the time windows for PCA early P3 and PCA late P3 were 380~460 ms and 530~640 ms respectively.
At the behavioral level, the Action Source (Reactive, Intentional) × Stimulus category (Standard, Deviant) ANOVA on response times (RT) showed a significant interaction effect. Further analyses showed that, for both the Reactive and Intentional conditions, the Deviant stimuli were associated with longer RTs than the Standard stimuli. Moreover, the Intentional condition showed longer RTs than the Reactive condition for Standard stimuli, but the opposite pattern was observed for Deviant stimuli. At neural level, the Action source (Reactive, Intentional) × Stimulus category (Standard, Deviant) ANOVA on N2 amplitudes only showed a significant main effect of Action source, with more pronounced amplitudes for the Intentional condition than for the Reactive condition. For the traditional averaged early P3 component, the ANOVA only showed a significant main effect of Stimulus category, with larger amplitudes for the Deviant stimuli than for the Standard stimuli. Meanwhile, the analysis on PCA early P3 component showed a significant interaction effect. Further analyses showed that, for both the Reactive and Intentional conditions, the Deviant stimuli elicited larger amplitudes than the Standard stimuli. Moreover, the Intentional condition showed larger amplitudes than the Reactive condition for Standard stimuli, but a reverse pattern was observed for Deviant stimuli. For the late P3 component (both the traditional and PCA results), the ANOVA showed a significant interaction effect. Further analyses showed that, for the Reactive condition, the Deviant stimuli elicited larger amplitudes than the Standard stimuli, while for the Intentional condition, the Deviant stimuli elicited smaller amplitudes than the Standard stimuli. Moreover, the Intentional condition showed larger amplitudes than the Reactive condition for Standard stimuli, but a reverse pattern was observed for Deviant stimuli. Finally, correlation analyses revealed negative associations between the RT and ERP indices of intentional inhibition, including RT delay, N2 differences, and early P3 differences (i.e., the differences between Intentional Deviant stimuli and Intentional Standard stimuli, both the traditional and PCA results). However, only a significant negative correlation was found between the inhibition rate and RT delay, while no significant correlations were observed between the inhibition rate and ERP indices of intentional inhibition.
In summary, the present study suggests that the temporal dynamics of intentional inhibition may encompass the updating of a current and well-prepared response program (indicated by the N2 component), the implementation of inhibitory performance (indicated by the early P3 component), and the subsequent evaluation of inhibitory performance (indicated by the late P3 component). Moreover, these findings also indicate that the Free Two-Choice Oddball task not only captures neural activity associated with intentional inhibition but also provides behavioral evidence for this cognitive process (specifically, the updating process and the implementation of inhibitory performance), making it a more suitable research paradigm in this field.

Key words: intentional inhibition, Oddball task, N2, P3

摘要： 采用自主设计的自由双选择Oddball任务考察内生意图性抑制的时程动态特征。该任务在双选择Oddball任务的基础上（含标准刺激和偏差刺激试次）增加了自由选择试次,要求被试自主地选择对该试次做出优势的标准刺激反应或者非优势的偏差刺激反应。结果发现：（1）个体在自由选择试次上的偏差刺激反应比标准刺激反应表现出更长的反应时、更大的早期P3和更小的晚期P3波幅;（2）自由选择试次比标准刺激和偏差刺激试次诱发了更负的N2波幅;（3）内生意图性抑制的反应时指标与N2和早期P3脑电指标显著负相关。结果表明：内生意图性抑制的加工过程可能涉及对优势行为模式的更新（N2为指标）、行为抑制的执行（早期P3为指标）与结果评估（晚期P3为指标）这三个阶段。

关键词: 内生意图性抑制, Oddball任务, N2, P3

Xu Mengsi, Li Zhiai, Zhang Junhua, Wang Zhenhong. Temporal Characteristics of the Three Stages of Intentional Inhibition[J]. Journal of Psychological Science, 2024, 47(6): 1293-1304.

徐梦思, 李志爱, 张俊华, 王振宏. 内生意图性抑制的三阶段时程动态特征^*[J]. 心理科学, 2024, 47(6): 1293-1304.

References

[1] 陈洁佳, 周翊, 陈杰. (2020). 音乐训练与抑制控制的关系: 来自ERPs的证据. 心理学报, 52(12), 1365-1376.
[2] 何怡娟, 胡馨木, 买晓琴. (2022). 共情关怀对公平决策的影响——来自ERP的证据. 心理学报, 54(4), 385-397.
[3] 辛勇, 李红, 袁加锦. (2010). 负性情绪干扰行为抑制控制: 一项事件相关电位研究. 心理学报, 42(3), 334-341.
[4] 杨丽珠, 陈靖涵, 王素霞, 沈悦, 孙岩. (2017). 内生意图性抑制: 自我控制研究的新视角. 心理科学进展, 25(10), 1631-1641.
[5] 袁加锦, 徐萌萌, 杨洁敏, 李红. (2017). 双选择Oddball范式在行为抑制控制研究中的应用. 中国科学: 生命科学, 47(10), 1065-1073.
[6] Buodo G., Sarlo M., Mento G., Messerotti Benvenuti S., & Palomba D. (2017). Unpleasant stimuli differentially modulate inhibitory processes in an emotional Go/No-go task: An event-related potential study. Cognition and Emotion, 31(1), 127-138.
[7] Cohen, M. X. (2017). Where does EEG come from and what does it mean? Trends in Neurosciences, 40(4), 208-218.
[8] Dall’Acqua T., Begliomini C., Motta R., Miotto D., & Castiello U. (2018). Effects of intentionality and subliminal information in free-choices to inhibit. Neuropsychologia, 109, 28-38.
[9] Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2004). EEGLAB: An open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 134(1), 9-21.
[10] Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135-168.
[11] Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang A. G., & Buchner A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191.
[12] Filevich E., Kühn S., & Haggard P. (2012). Intentional inhibition in human action: The power of 'no'. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 36(4), 1107-1118.
[13] Fogarty J. S., Barry R. J., & Steiner G. Z. (2019). Sequential processing in the classic oddball task: ERP components, probability, and behavior. Psychophysiology, 56(3), Article e13300.
[14] Hennecke, M., & Bürgler, S. (2023). Metacognition and self-control: An integrative framework. Psychological Review, 130(5), 1262-1288.
[15] Huster R. J., Enriquez-Geppert S., Lavallee C. F., Falkenstein M., & Herrmann C. S. (2013). Electroencephalography of response inhibition tasks: Functional networks and cognitive contributions. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 87(3), 217-233.
[16] Inzlicht M., Werner K. M., Briskin J. L., & Roberts B. W. (2021). Integrating models of self-regulation. Annual Review of Psychology, 72(1), 319-345.
[17] Kühn S., Haggard P., & Brass M. (2009). Intentional inhibition: How the "veto-area" exerts control. Human Brain Mapping, 30(9), 2834-2843.
[18] Liu X. Y., Liu Y., Song S. Q., Xiang G. C., Du X. L., Li Q. Q., & Chen H. (2022). "Free won't" of food in overweight and normal-weight adults: Comparison of neurocognitive correlates of intentional and reactive inhibitions. Neuropsychologia, 174, Article 108351.
[19] Lynn M. T., Muhle-Karbe P. S., & Brass M. (2014). Controlling the self: The role of the dorsal frontomedian cortex in intentional inhibition. Neuropsychologia, 65, 247-254.
[20] Parkinson, J., & Haggard, P. (2015). Choosing to stop: Responses evoked by externally triggered and internally generated inhibition identify a neural mechanism of will. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(10), 1948-1956.
[21] Rae C. L., Ahmad A., Larsson D. E. O., Silva M., van Praag, C. D. G., Garfinkel S. N., & Critchley H. D. (2020). Impact of cardiac interoception cues and confidence on voluntary decisions to make or withhold action in an intentional inhibition task. Scientific Reports, 10(1), Article 4184.
[22] Ridderinkhof K. R., van den Wildenberg, W. P. M., & Brass M. (2014). "Don' t" versus" "Won' T": Principles, mechanisms, and intention in action inhibition. Neuropsychologia, 65, 255-262.
[23] Schel M. A., Scheres A., & Crone E. A. (2014). New perspectives on self-control development: Highlighting the role of intentional inhibition. Neuropsychologia, 65, 236-246.
[24] Shen Y., Zhao H., Zhu J. Y., He Y., Zhang X., Liu S. H., & Chen J. H. (2020). Comparison of intentional inhibition and reactive inhibition in adolescents and adults: An ERP study. Developmental Neuropsychology, 45(2), 66-78.
[25] Wang Y. C., Liu P., Yao Z., & Wang Y. H. (2020). Why do you often stop your impulsive behavior at the last moment? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 27(3), 498-503.
[26] Weidacker K., Kvamme T. L., Whiteford S., Valle Guzman N., & Voon V. (2021). Incentives and voluntary stopping: The intentional hand task. Cognition, 206, Article 104504.
[27] Xu M. S., Fan L. X., Li Z. A., Qi S. Q., & Yang D. (2020). Neural signatures of reactive and intentional inhibitions: An ERP study. Current Psychology, 39(5), 1485-1495.
[28] Xu M. S., Li Z. A., Qi S. Q., Fan L. X., Zhou X. L., & Yang D. (2020). Social exclusion modulates dual mechanisms of cognitive control: Evidence from ERPs. Human Brain Mapping, 41(10), 2669-2685.
[29] Xu M. S., Wen J. Y., Li Z. A., Wang Z. H., & Zhang J. H. (2024). Behavioral impulse and time pressure jointly influence intentional inhibition: Evidence from the free two-choice oddball task. Psychological Research, 88(3), 936-949.
[30] Zhang G. H., Li X. Y., & Cong F. Y. (2020). Objective extraction of evoked event-related oscillation from time-frequency representation of event-related potentials. Neural Plasticity, 2020(1), Article 8841354.