The Journal of Korean Physical Therapy

The Korean Society of Physical Therapy (대한물리치료학회)
권호 표지

Comparison of Random and Blocked Practice during Performance of the Stop Signal Task

  • Kwon, Jung-Won (Department of Rehabilitation Science, Graduate School of Daegu University) ;
  • Nam, Seok-Hyun (Department of Rehabilitation Science, Graduate School of Daegu University) ;
  • Kim, Chung-Sun (Department of Physical Therapy, College of Rehabilitation Science, Daegu University)
  • Received : 2011.03.07
  • Accepted : 2011.06.14
  • Published : 2011.06.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: We investigated the changes in the stop-signal reaction time (SSRT) and the no-signal reaction time (NSRT) following motor sequential learning in the stop-signal task (SST). This study also determined which of the reduction0s of spatial processing time was better between blocked- and random-SST. Methods: Thirty right-handed healthy subjects without a history of neurological dysfunction were recruited. In all subjects, both the SSRT and the NSRT were measured for the SST. Tasks were classified into two categories based on the stop-signal patterns, the blocked-SST practice group and random-SST practice group. All subjects gave written informed consent. Results: In the blocked-SST group, both the SSRT and the NSRT was significantly decreased (p<0.05) but not significantly changed in the random-SST group. In the SSRT and the NSRT, the blocked-SST group was faster than the random-SST group (p<0.05). In the post-test SST after practice of each group, the SSRT was significantly decreased in the random-SST group (p<0.05), but the NSRT showed no significant changes in either group. Conclusion: These findings demonstrate that random-SST practice resulted in a decrease in internal processing times needed for a rapid stop to visual signals, indicating motor skill learning is acquired through improved response selection and inhibition.

Keywords

References

  1. Aron AR. The neural basis of inhibition in cognitive control. Neuroscientist. 2007;13(3):214-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858407299288
  2. Miyake A, Friedman NP, Emerson MJ et al. The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex "Frontal lobe" Tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cogn Psychol. 2000;41(1):49-100. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
  3. Aron AR, Poldrack RA. Cortical and subcortical contributions to stop signal response inhibition: Role of the subthalamic nucleus. J Neurosci. 2006;26(9):2424-33. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4682-05.2006
  4. Bekker EM, Overtoom CC, Kooij JJ et al. Disentangling deficits in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005;62(10):1129-36. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.62.10.1129
  5. Chamberlain SR, Fineberg NA, Blackwell AD et al. Motor inhibition and cognitive flexibility in obsessive-compulsive disorder and trichotillomania. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163(7):1282-4. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.163.7.1282
  6. Gauggel S, Rieger M, Feghoff TA. Inhibition of ongoing responses in patients with parkinson's disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2004;75(4):539-44. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2003.016469
  7. van den Wildenberg WP, van Boxtel GJ, van der Molen MW et al. Stimulation of the subthalamic region facilitates the selection and inhibition of motor responses in parkinson's disease. J Cogn Neurosci. 2006;18(4):626-36. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.4.626
  8. Barkley RA. Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions: constructing a unifying theory of adhd. Psychol Bull. 1997;121(1):65-94.
  9. Logan GD, Schachar RJ, Tannock R. Impulsivity and inhibitory control. Psychological Science. 1997;8:60-4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00545.x
  10. Williams BR, Ponesse JS, Schachar RJ et al. Development of inhibitory control across the life span. Dev Psychol. 1999;35(1):205-13.
  11. Verbruggen F, Logan GD. Response inhibition in the stop-signal paradigm. Trends Cogn Sci. 2008;12(11):418-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.005
  12. Verbruggen F, Logan GD. Models of response inhibition in the stop-signal and stop-change paradigms. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2009;33(5):647-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.08.014
  13. Band GP, van der Molen MW, Logan GD. Horse-race model simulations of the stop-signal procedure. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2003;112(2):105-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(02)00079-3
  14. Chikazoe J, Jimura K, Hirose S et al. Preparation to inhibit a response complements response inhibition during performance of a stop-signal task. J Neurosci. 2009;29(50): 15870-7. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3645-09.2009
  15. Goghari VM, MacDonald AW, 3rd. The neural basis of cognitive control: Response selection and inhibition. Brain Cogn. 2009;71(2):72-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2009.04.004
  16. Verbruggen F, Logan GD. Automaticity of cognitive control: Goal priming in response-inhibition paradigms. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2009;35(5):1381-8.
  17. Cohen JR, Poldrack RA. Automaticity in motor sequence learning does not impair response inhibition. Psychon Bull Rev. 2008;15(1):108-15. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.1.108
  18. Verbruggen F, Logan GD. Proactive adjustments of response strategies in the stop-signal paradigm. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2009;35(3):835-54.
  19. Verbruggen F, Logan GD, Liefooghe B et al. Short-term aftereffects of response inhibition: Repetition priming or between-trial control adjustments? J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2008;34(2):413-26. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.34.2.413
  20. Verbruggen F, Logan GD. Automatic and controlled response inhibition: Associative learning in the go/no-go and stop-signal paradigms. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2008;137(4):649-72.
  21. Verbruggen F, Logan GD. Long-term aftereffects of response inhibition: Memory retrieval, task goals, and cognitive control. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2008;34(5):1229-35.
  22. Seiss E, Praamstra P. The basal ganglia and inhibitory mechanisms in response selection: Evidence from subliminal priming of motor responses in parkinson's disease. Brain. 2004;127(Pt 2):330-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awh043
  23. Kwon YH, Jang JS, Kim CS. Changes of cortical activation pattern induced by motor learning with serial reaction time task. J Kor Soc Phys Ther. 2009;21(1):65-72. https://doi.org/10.1589/jpts.21.65
  24. Lee MY, Park RJ, Nam KS. The effect of implicit motor sequence learning through perceptual-motor task in patients with subacute stroke. J Kor Soc Phys Ther. 2008;20(3):1-8.
  25. Verbruggen F, Logan GD, Stevens MA. Stop-it: Windows executable software for the stop-signal paradigm. Behav Res Methods. 2008;40(2):479-83. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.2.479
  26. Won JY, Kim EJ. Validation of stop-signal task. Journal of Korean Psychological Association. 2008;27(1):217-34.
  27. Claffey MP, Sheldon S, Stinear CM et al. Having a goal to stop action is associated with advance control of specific motor representations. Neuropsychologia. 2010;48:541-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.10.015
  28. Kwon JW, Nam SH, Kim CS. The effect of rehabilitation of a stop signal task on the execution and stop function of movement. J Kor Soc Phys Ther. 2011;23(2):37-43.
  29. Verbruggen F, Liefooghe B, Vandierendonck A. Selective stopping in task switching: The role of response selection and response execution. Exp Psychol. 2006;53(1):48-57. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.53.1.48