Cognitive Control Reflects Context Monitoring, Not Motoric Stopping, in Response Inhibition

Chatham, Christopher H.; Claus, Eric D.; Kim, Albert; Curran, Tim; Banich, Marie T.; Munakata, Yuko · 2012 · OpenAlex-citations

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031546

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 challenges the dominant view that response inhibition relies primarily on motoric stopping mechanisms. Instead, the authors argue that cognitive control in this domain reflects context monitoring—the detection of environmental cues indicating that a prepotent response is inappropriate. To test this, the researchers compared two tasks with identical context-monitoring demands but differing motor requirements: a Stop Task, where participants must inhibit a planned response upon seeing a signal, and a Double Go Task, where participants must repeat their response upon seeing the same signal. By isolating the need for motoric stopping, the study aimed to determine whether cognitive control processes are specific to stopping or shared across tasks requiring context monitoring. The researchers employed a multimodal approach, including functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), event-related potentials (ERPs), pupillometry, and computational modeling. Behavioral data were analyzed using a mixture model to distinguish between trials where participants slowed their responses due to signal detection versus those where they did not. This allowed for the estimation of individual differences in the time of signal detection (context monitoring) and the duration of slowing (motoric interference). The experimental design ensured that both tasks required monitoring for a rare signal, but only the Stop Task required the cancellation of a motor action. Results consistently supported the context-monitoring hypothesis. fMRI analyses revealed that the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (rVLPFC) and subthalamic nucleus were more strongly recruited during the Double Go Task than the Stop Task, contradicting the notion that these regions are specialized for stopping. Multivariate pattern analysis showed that neural representations in the rVLPFC were highly consistent across tasks, particularly on signal trials, indicating shared processing regardless of motor demands. Electrophysiological data showed that the "Stop P3" component, traditionally associated with stopping, was actually enhanced in the Double Go Task. Pupillometry indicated that mental effort was driven by the relevance of the monitored signal to the planned response rather than the act of stopping itself. Furthermore, computational modeling demonstrated that individual differences in stopping efficiency correlated with signal detection time, not with the duration of motoric slowing. The findings imply that the cognitively controlled process in response inhibition is the monitoring of context for goal-relevant signals, not the motoric stopping of actions. This challenges existing theories that posit motoric stopping as the central controlled mechanism and suggests that the rVLPFC supports proactive and reactive context monitoring. The study clarifies debates regarding the frontal substrates of inhibition by demonstrating that neural and behavioral markers of control are driven by the need to detect and interpret environmental cues, rather than by the execution of motor inhibition. This reframing suggests that inhibitory control tasks may primarily measure the ability to monitor context in the service of goals, with motoric stopping potentially being a reflexive or less controlled consequence of that monitoring.

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.

• executive function