Towards Conceptual Clarification of Proactive Inhibitory Control: A Review

The aim of this selective review paper is to clarify potential confusion when referring to the term proactive inhibitory control. Illustrated by a concise overview of the literature, we propose defining reactive inhibition as the mechanism underlying stopping an action. On a stop trial, the stop signal initiates the stopping process that races against the ongoing action-related process that is triggered by the go signal. Whichever processes finishes first determines the behavioral outcome of the race. That is, stopping is either successful or unsuccessful in that trial. Conversely, we propose using the term proactive inhibition to explicitly indicate preparatory processes engaged to bias the outcome of the race between stopping and going. More specifically, these proactive processes include either pre-amping the reactive inhibition system (biasing the efficiency of the stopping process) or presetting the action system (biasing the efficiency of the go process). We believe that this distinction helps meaningful comparisons between various outcome measures of proactive inhibitory control that are reported in the literature and extends to experimental research paradigms other than the stop task

The Allure of High-Risk Rewards in Huntington’s disease

Objectives: Huntington’s disease (HD) is a neurodegenerative disorder that produces a bias toward risky, reward-driven decisions in situations where the outcomes of decisions are uncertain and must be discovered. However, it is unclear whether HD patients show similar biases in decision-making when learning demands are minimized and prospective risks and outcomes are known explicitly. We investigated how risk decision-making strategies and adjustments are altered in HD patients when reward contingencies are explicit. Methods: HD (N=18) and healthy control (HC; N=17) participants completed a risk-taking task in which they made a series of independent choices between a low-risk/low reward and high-risk/high reward risk options. Results: Computational modeling showed that compared to HC, who showed a clear preference for low-risk compared to high-risk decisions, the HD group valued high-risks more than low-risk decisions, especially when high-risks were rewarded. The strategy analysis indicated that when high-risk options were rewarded, HC adopted a conservative risk strategy on the next trial by preferring the low-risk option (i.e., they counted their blessings and then played the surer bet). In contrast, following a rewarded high-risk choice, HD patients showed a clear preference for repeating the high-risk choice. Conclusions: These results indicate a pattern of high-risk/high-reward decision bias in HD that persists when outcomes and risks are certain. The allure of high-risk/high-reward decisions in situations of risk certainty and uncertainty expands our insight into the dynamic decision-making deficits that create considerable clinical burden in HD

Moving Atom-Field Interaction: Correction to Casimir-Polder Effect from Coherent Back-action

The Casimir-Polder force is an attractive force between a polarizable atom and a conducting or dielectric boundary. Its original computation was in terms of the Lamb shift of the atomic ground state in an electromagnetic field (EMF) modified by boundary conditions along the wall and assuming a stationary atom. We calculate the corrections to this force due to a moving atom, demanding maximal preservation of entanglement generated by the moving atom-conducting wall system. We do this by using non-perturbative path integral techniques which allow for coherent back-action and thus can treat non-Markovian processes. We recompute the atom-wall force for a conducting boundary by allowing the bare atom-EMF ground state to evolve (or self-dress) into the interacting ground state. We find a clear distinction between the cases of stationary and adiabatic motions. Our result for the retardation correction for adiabatic motion is up to twice as much as that computed for stationary atoms. We give physical interpretations of both the stationary and adiabatic atom-wall forces in terms of alteration of the virtual photon cloud surrounding the atom by the wall and the Doppler effect.Comment: 16 pages, 2 figures, clarified discussions; to appear in Phys. Rev.