Cognitive control reflects context monitoring, not motoric stopping, in response inhibition.

The inhibition of unwanted behaviors is considered an effortful and controlled ability. However, inhibition also requires the detection of contexts indicating that old behaviors may be inappropriate--in other words, inhibition requires the ability to monitor context in the service of goals, which we...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Christopher H Chatham, Eric D Claus, Albert Kim, Tim Curran, Marie T Banich, Yuko Munakata
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2012-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/22384038/pdf/?tool=EBI
id doaj-40b520033ad34856ade1a2ac4309f5f5
record_format Article
spelling doaj-40b520033ad34856ade1a2ac4309f5f52021-03-03T20:30:14ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032012-01-0172e3154610.1371/journal.pone.0031546Cognitive control reflects context monitoring, not motoric stopping, in response inhibition.Christopher H ChathamEric D ClausAlbert KimTim CurranMarie T BanichYuko MunakataThe inhibition of unwanted behaviors is considered an effortful and controlled ability. However, inhibition also requires the detection of contexts indicating that old behaviors may be inappropriate--in other words, inhibition requires the ability to monitor context in the service of goals, which we refer to as context-monitoring. Using behavioral, neuroimaging, electrophysiological and computational approaches, we tested whether motoric stopping per se is the cognitively-controlled process supporting response inhibition, or whether context-monitoring may fill this role. Our results demonstrate that inhibition does not require control mechanisms beyond those involved in context-monitoring, and that such control mechanisms are the same regardless of stopping demands. These results challenge dominant accounts of inhibitory control, which posit that motoric stopping is the cognitively-controlled process of response inhibition, and clarify emerging debates on the frontal substrates of response inhibition by replacing the centrality of controlled mechanisms for motoric stopping with context-monitoring.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/22384038/pdf/?tool=EBI
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Christopher H Chatham
Eric D Claus
Albert Kim
Tim Curran
Marie T Banich
Yuko Munakata
spellingShingle Christopher H Chatham
Eric D Claus
Albert Kim
Tim Curran
Marie T Banich
Yuko Munakata
Cognitive control reflects context monitoring, not motoric stopping, in response inhibition.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Christopher H Chatham
Eric D Claus
Albert Kim
Tim Curran
Marie T Banich
Yuko Munakata
author_sort Christopher H Chatham
title Cognitive control reflects context monitoring, not motoric stopping, in response inhibition.
title_short Cognitive control reflects context monitoring, not motoric stopping, in response inhibition.
title_full Cognitive control reflects context monitoring, not motoric stopping, in response inhibition.
title_fullStr Cognitive control reflects context monitoring, not motoric stopping, in response inhibition.
title_full_unstemmed Cognitive control reflects context monitoring, not motoric stopping, in response inhibition.
title_sort cognitive control reflects context monitoring, not motoric stopping, in response inhibition.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2012-01-01
description The inhibition of unwanted behaviors is considered an effortful and controlled ability. However, inhibition also requires the detection of contexts indicating that old behaviors may be inappropriate--in other words, inhibition requires the ability to monitor context in the service of goals, which we refer to as context-monitoring. Using behavioral, neuroimaging, electrophysiological and computational approaches, we tested whether motoric stopping per se is the cognitively-controlled process supporting response inhibition, or whether context-monitoring may fill this role. Our results demonstrate that inhibition does not require control mechanisms beyond those involved in context-monitoring, and that such control mechanisms are the same regardless of stopping demands. These results challenge dominant accounts of inhibitory control, which posit that motoric stopping is the cognitively-controlled process of response inhibition, and clarify emerging debates on the frontal substrates of response inhibition by replacing the centrality of controlled mechanisms for motoric stopping with context-monitoring.
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/22384038/pdf/?tool=EBI
work_keys_str_mv AT christopherhchatham cognitivecontrolreflectscontextmonitoringnotmotoricstoppinginresponseinhibition
AT ericdclaus cognitivecontrolreflectscontextmonitoringnotmotoricstoppinginresponseinhibition
AT albertkim cognitivecontrolreflectscontextmonitoringnotmotoricstoppinginresponseinhibition
AT timcurran cognitivecontrolreflectscontextmonitoringnotmotoricstoppinginresponseinhibition
AT marietbanich cognitivecontrolreflectscontextmonitoringnotmotoricstoppinginresponseinhibition
AT yukomunakata cognitivecontrolreflectscontextmonitoringnotmotoricstoppinginresponseinhibition
_version_ 1714822122961895424