Nothing declared. Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as: • of special interest This work was supported by a grant awarded to Dr. Michael Chee from the National Medical Research Council Singapore (STaR/0004/2008). “
“Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 2015, 1:64–71 This review comes from a themed issue on Cognitive neuroscience Edited by Angela Yu and Howard Eichenbaum http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2014.10.009 2352-1546/© 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All right reserved. At the heart of voluntary behavior is the ability to respond

flexibly in the face of an ever-changing environment to achieve ones goals. Flexibility of behavior in turn requires the ability to control the process by which the desired action is selected see more and generated. Actions are often selected automatically in response to known task rules or contingencies in the environment.

While such mechanisms allow maneuvering simple or unchanging situations, they need to be overridden when there are changes in the environments that make the initial response maladaptive or when task rules change. These changes can occur suddenly and unforeseeable, or they can occur with some forewarning, so that some preparation is possible. In either case, what is required is the ability to stop an action from happening. Stopping, a form of response click here Epothilone B (EPO906, Patupilone) inhibition, is a type of control that can be easily, and precisely, studied experimentally, in contrast to other forms of behavioral control, such as the control of impulses, thoughts and emotions. For this reason, stopping has been extensively studied in a wide range of different species using a variety of methods. In these investigations, the stop-signal task has turned out to be particularly fruitful. The stop-signal task probes the ability to control action by requiring subjects to inhibit

a planned movement in response to an infrequent stop signal, which they do with variable success depending on the delay of the stop signal. Stop signal task performance can be accounted for by a race between a process that initiates the movement (GO process) and by one that inhibits the movement (STOP process) 1 and 2]. This race model provides an estimate of the stop signal reaction time (SSRT), which is the time required to inhibit the planned movement. Much of this work has been reviewed recently 3, 4, 5 and 6]. Here we will concentrate on recent neurophysiological work that has begun to reveal its underlying neural basis. Currently, our clearest mechanistic understanding of response inhibition is still within the saccadic system of primates coming from a series of recording studies in the frontal eye field (FEF) and superior colliculus (SC) of macaque monkeys performing a saccade stop signal task 7, 8, 9 and 10].