Motor Inhibition versus Interference Suppression: Neural and Behavioural Features of Action Monitoring and Error Processing

Action inhibition and error commission are prominent in everyday life. Inhibition comprises at least two facets: motor inhibition and interference suppression. When motor inhibition fails, a strong response impulse cannot be inhibited. When interference suppression fails, we become distracted by irrelevant stimuli. We investigated the neural and behavioural similarities and differences between motor inhibition errors and interference suppression errors systematically from stimulus-onset to post-response adaptation. To enable a direct comparison between both error types, we developed a complex speeded choice task where we assessed the error types in two perceptually similar conditions. Comparing the error types along the processing stream showed that the P2, an early component in the event-related potential associated with sensory gating, is the first marker for differences between the two error types. Further error-specific variations were found for the parietal P3 (associated with context updating and attentional resource allocation), for the lateralized readiness potential (LRP, associated with primary motor cortex activity), and for the Pe (associated with error evidence accumulation). For motor inhibition errors, the P2, P3 and Pe tended to be enhanced compared to successful inhibition. The LRP for motor inhibition errors was marked by multiple small response impulses. For interference suppression errors, all components were more similar to those of successful inhibition. Together, these findings suggest that motor inhibition errors arise from a deficient early inhibitory process at the perceptual and motor level, and become more apparent than interference suppression errors, that arise from an impeded response selection process. Preprint for: Porth, E., Mattes, A. & Stahl, J. Motor inhibition errors and interference suppression errors differ systematically on neural and behavioural features of response monitoring. Sci Rep 14, 15966 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-66364-8 This research was supported by the German Research Foundation (STA 1035/7-1) and by Cusanuswerk e.V. (scholarship provider). notReviewed other