Working memory load reduces corticospinal suppression to former go and trained no-go cues
Abstract Environmental cues associated with an action can prime the motor system, decreasing response times and activating motor regions of the brain. However, when task goals change, the same responses to former go-associated cues are no longer required and motor priming needs to be inhibited to av...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Nature Portfolio
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/31a97b613a674fb29a7cbfb28daf6ba5 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Abstract Environmental cues associated with an action can prime the motor system, decreasing response times and activating motor regions of the brain. However, when task goals change, the same responses to former go-associated cues are no longer required and motor priming needs to be inhibited to avoid unwanted behavioural errors. The present study tested whether the inhibition of motor system activity to presentations of former go cues is reliant on top-down, goal-directed cognitive control processes using a working memory (WM) load manipulation. Applying transcranial magnetic stimulation over the primary motor cortex to measure motor system activity during a Go/No-go task, we found that under low WM, corticospinal excitability was suppressed to former go and trained no-go cues relative to control cues. Under high WM, the cortical suppression to former go cues was reduced, suggesting that the underlying mechanism required executive control. Unexpectedly, we found a similar result for trained no-go cues and showed in a second experiment that the corticospinal suppression and WM effects were unrelated to local inhibitory function as indexed by short-interval intracortical inhibition. Our findings reveal that the interaction between former response cues and WM is complex and we discuss possible explanations of our findings in relation to models of response inhibition. |
|---|