Post-stop-signal adjustments: Inhibition improves subsequent inhibition.

Bissett, Patrick G.; Logan, Gordon D. · 2012 · OpenAlex-citations

DOI: 10.1037/a0026778

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This study investigates whether the cognitive priority shift away from a "go" task following a stop signal is coupled with a corresponding shift toward the "stop" task, resulting in faster subsequent inhibition. While post-stop-signal slowing of go responses is well-documented, it remains unclear if the stop process itself becomes more efficient immediately after a failed or successful inhibition attempt. The authors tested this hypothesis using the stop-signal paradigm across six experiments to determine if stop-signal reaction time (SSRT) decreases on trials immediately following a stop signal, and whether this effect depends on stimulus repetition or sensory modality. The experiments utilized a standard stop-signal task where participants responded to visual shapes (go task) and withheld responses upon hearing or seeing a stop signal. The stop-signal delay (SSD) was adjusted via a staircase procedure to maintain a 50% probability of inhibition. Experiment 1 established a baseline using a single auditory stop signal. Experiments 2, 3, and 4 manipulated the similarity of successive stop signals within the same modality (auditory tones in Exp. 2; visual stars in Exp. 3; visual bars in Exp. 4) to test if SSRT improvements were stimulus-specific. Experiments 5 and 6 interleaved auditory and visual stop signals to assess whether SSRT improvements were modality-specific. SSRT was estimated using the integration method, comparing performance on the first (S1) and second (S2) trials of consecutive stop sequences. The results consistently demonstrated that SSRT was significantly faster on the second stop trial (S2) compared to the first (S1) in Experiments 1, 2, and 4, indicating that inhibition improves immediately after a stop signal. In Experiment 3, the trend toward faster S2 SSRT was present but did not reach statistical significance, though combined analyses with Experiment 4 confirmed the effect. Crucially, the improvement in SSRT occurred regardless of whether the specific stop stimulus repeated or alternated within the same modality (Experiments 2–4). However, when stop signals alternated between auditory and visual modalities (Experiments 5 and 6), SSRT improvements were observed only when the modality repeated. This indicates that the facilitation of subsequent inhibition is specific to the sensory modality of the stop signal rather than the specific stimulus identity. These findings suggest that post-stop-signal adjustments involve a bidirectional shift in goal priority: slowing go responses to reduce errors and speeding up the stop process to improve inhibition efficiency. The modality-specific nature of the SSRT improvement supports episodic retrieval theories, implying that the context of the previous stop trial, including its sensory modality, is retrieved to facilitate subsequent stopping. This work clarifies the mechanisms of sequential control adjustments, demonstrating that inhibition is not merely a passive consequence of go-task slowing but an active, modality-dependent process that enhances subsequent inhibitory control.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-26; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• task switching