Stop or stop-change — does it make any difference for the inhibition process?
Abstract
In the course of daily living altering environmental conditions or changing internal states often cause us to abandon obsolete planned or initiated actions and force us to update our behavior. The stop-change paradigm, an extension of the very popular stop-signal paradigm, allows the investigation of response inhibition and response re-engagement in a laboratory setting. This is very important as everyday life rarely calls for the complete suppression of actions without subsequent behavioral adjustment. The present review first gives a short overview on stop-signal inhibition and its behavioral and neural models before summarizing the findings in the stop-change domain. In doing so, this review shall contribute to a better understanding of the functional and neural architecture of response inhibition and re-engagement. Moreover, the question is raised whether the same or different inhibition process(es) are involved in stop-signal- and stop-change inhibition.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
HRT's competing response includes engagement in different motor actions, thereby activating different brain areas and cognitive structures.
“Whilst both of these forms of competing response overlap functionally, in terms of depending on inhibitory brain mechanisms [45], the former relies on pure suppression (i.e. no response taking place), while the latter includes engagement in different motor actions , thereby activating different brain areas and cognitive structures [46 -51]”
From Habit as a therapeutic component in psychological treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder: A randomised controlled feasibility study. (2026) · cites this paper as [48]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 77 · Cited by 59
- Authors
- Boecker, M., Gauggel, S., & Drueke, B.
- Affiliations
- RWTH Aachen University (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Boecker, Maren
- Venue
- International Journal of Psychophysiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-03
- Volume
- 87
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 234-243
- ISSN
- 0167-8760 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1980937300
- Cited by
- 59
- References
- 77
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 0.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Psychophysiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
- Keywords
- stop-signal task, response inhibition, behavioral flexibility, action suppression
- MeSH terms
- Brain, Brain Mapping, Cognition, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Models, Neurological, Neuropsychological Tests, Signal Detection, Psychological
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review