Cortical control and performance monitoring of interrupting and redirecting movements

Abstract

Voluntary behaviour requires control mechanisms that ensure our ability to act independently of habitual and innate response tendencies. Electrophysiological experiments, using the stop-signal task in humans, monkeys and rats, have uncovered a core network of brain structures that is essential for response inhibition. This network is shared across mammals and seems to be conserved throughout their evolution. Recently, new research building on these earlier findings has started to investigate the interaction between response inhibition and other control mechanisms in the brain. Here we describe recent progress in three different areas: selectivity of movement inhibition across different motor systems, re-orientation of motor actions and action evaluation.This article is part of the themed issue 'Movement suppression: brain mechanisms for stopping and stillness'.

Keywords: inhibition; monitoring; redirecting.

Figure 1.

No saccadic spike potentials (SPs) are evident in cancelled trials aligned on a virtual saccade event. The most prominent components in the ERPs are the sharp negative SPs, which occur just before or concomitant with the saccade onset and the several positive and negative deflections that follow. Note the extreme similarity of the ERVs for no-stop and non-cancelled trials. Also note the similarity between no-stop and non-cancelled ERPs. This similarity is especially apparent in the time before the saccade onset when the SP is visible. (Adapted from [2].)

Figure 2.

Cortical regions of common ipsilateral STN connectivity across the group. Dark grey regions demonstrate corticotractography intersections. Each hemisphere is shown on the corresponding side. Views, clockwise from top-left: left medial surface, anterior surface, superior surface, inferior surface, left lateral insula, left lateral surface. (Adapted from [22].)

Figure 3.

Movement (a) and visual activity (b) during target-step trials in the double-step task in which the target stepped out of the receptive field. Compensated target-step trials (red solid) and latency-matched no-step trials (black). While movement-related activity showed countermanding (cancellation) of a partially prepared motor plan before the target-step reaction time (TSRT), visual cells did not. (Adapted from [33].)

Figure 4.

SEF neurons representing decision confidence following the choice. Economic decisions are driven by a comparison of the value of the available options. Small differences in value between the chosen and the unchosen option result therefore in low choice confidence, whereas large differences lead to high choice confidence. The activity of many SEF neurons is negatively (a) or positively (b) correlated with value difference, reflecting choice confidence. This confidence-related signal is present independently of the amount of reward expectation (compare activity on high and low value trials). The best regression model for each example neuron is shown to the right of the histograms. Neuronal activities (dots) are plotted against the value difference between the chosen and the unchosen option. (a) In some cases, the confidence-related signal is multiplexed with other outcome-related signals. The neuron that shows a negative correlation with value difference (representing low confidence) also shows a positive correlation with the value of the unchosen option (UV). The three lines indicate the best regression model for low (red), medium (green) and high (blue) unchosen value. (b) The neuron that shows a positive correlation with value difference (representing high confidence) shows no correlation with any other outcome-related variable. (Adapted from [82].)