Cited by 113Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeural dynamics and brain functionFree Will and Agency

Establishing a right frontal beta signature for stopping action in scalp EEG: Implications for testing inhibitory control in other task contexts

Open access
Wagner, Johanna, Wessel, Jan R., Ghahremani, Ayda, Aron, Adam R.·2018·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Abstract

Many studies have examined the rapid stopping of action as a proxy of human self-control. Several methods have shown that a critical focus for stopping is the right inferior frontal cortex. Moreover, electrocorticography studies have shown beta band power increases in the right inferior frontal cortex and in the BG for successful versus failed stop trials, before the time of stopping elapses, perhaps underpinning a prefrontal–BG network for inhibitory control. Here, we tested whether the same signature might be visible in scalp electroencephalography (EEG)—which would open important avenues for using this signature in studies of the recruitment and timing of prefrontal inhibitory control. We used independent component analysis and time–frequency approaches to analyze EEG from three different cohorts of healthy young volunteers (48 participants in total) performing versions of the standard stop signal task. We identified a spectral power increase in the band 13–20 Hz that occurs after the stop signal, but before the time of stopping elapses, with a right frontal topography in the EEG. This right frontal beta band increase was significantly larger for successful compared with failed stops in two of the three studies. We also tested the hypothesis that unexpected events recruit the same frontal system for stopping. Indeed, we show that the stopping-related right-lateralized frontal beta signature was also active after unexpected events (and we accordingly provide data and scripts for the method). These results validate a right frontal beta signature in the EEG as a temporally precise and functionally significant neural marker of the response inhibition process.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/jocn_a_01183

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • In the broader EEG literature, beta oscillations have been associated with maintenance of the status quo, motor inhibition, top-down control, and reduced flexibility of action systems.

    “In the broader EEG literature, beta oscillations have been associated with maintenance of the status quo, motor inhibition, top-down control, and reduced flexibility of action systems [218,219,220,221].”

    From Electrophysiological Correlates of Cognitive Dysfunction in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD): A Systematic and Mechanistic Review of EEG, ERP, and QEEG Evidence (2026) · cites this paper as [221]

    The Introduction describes stopping action as top-down inhibitory control, and the Abstract identifies right-frontal beta activity as a marker of response inhibition. The Discussion links beta oscillations to motor control. Maintenance of the status quo and reduced flexibility of action systems are not findings the paper itself states; the References list related work on favoring an existing motor state over new movement. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Beta abnormalities may be related to stronger or more sustained inhibitory processing, delayed release from post-error control states, or persistence of the current cognitive-motor set.

    “Beta abnormalities may be related to stronger or more sustained inhibitory processing, delayed release from post-error control states, or persistence of the current cognitive–motor set [218,219,221].”

    From Electrophysiological Correlates of Cognitive Dysfunction in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD): A Systematic and Mechanistic Review of EEG, ERP, and QEEG Evidence (2026) · cites this paper as [221]

    The Discussion (‘Unexpected events’; page unavailable) links a transient right-frontal beta increase to a putative suppression process and proposes that unexpected events recruit a stopping system. It does not establish that beta abnormalities reflect sustained inhibition, delayed release from post-error control, or persistence of a cognitive–motor set. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In healthy inhibitory-control studies, right frontal and motor beta activity has been linked to successful stopping and suppression of initiated responses.

    “In healthy inhibitory-control studies, right frontal and motor beta activity has been linked to successful stopping and suppression of initiated responses [219,220,221].”
  • Prior scalp qEEG studies found increased delta, theta, and beta power at right frontal electrodes during successful stopping in a stop-signal task, suggesting an association between right frontal cortex and inhibitory control.

    “Previous scalp qEEG studies reported increased power in delta, theta, and beta frequency bands at right frontal electrodes with successful stopping within a stop signal task,39, 40 suggesting a significant association between right frontal cortex and inhibitory control.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wagner, J., Wessel, J. R., Ghahremani, A., & Aron, A. R.
Affiliations
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • University of Iowa (US)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
2018-01
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
107-118
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
OpenAlex
W2751755304
Cited by
112
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
4.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA026452)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
Keywords
inhibitory control, stop-signal task, response inhibition, self-control, right inferior frontal cortex, unexpected events, neural markers
MeSH terms
Beta Rhythm, Female, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Male, Motor Activity, Neuropsychological Tests, Scalp, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, Young Adult

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