1 Inhibition of
prepotent action is an important aspect of self-control,
2 Adaptive behavior is influenced by
prepotent action-reward and inaction-avoid loss Pavlovia
3 specific effects in the ability to cancel a
prepotent action.
4 The capacity to inhibit
prepotent actions (strategic self-control) is thought to
5 -basal ganglia circuit is needed to suppress
prepotent actions and to facilitate controlled behavior.
6 ty shapes competition between controlled and
prepotent actions.
7 ial, so on these trials a "yes" response was
prepotent and had to be inhibited, by hypothesis.
8 ates, filtering distractors, and suppressing
prepotent,
and competitive responses.
9 ion of aPFC territories to the regulation of
prepotent approach-avoidance action tendencies elicited
10 The balance between impulsive
prepotent behavior and inhibition is a crucial aspect of
11 ask in which successful performance required
prepotent behaviors to be inhibited.
12 ponse or motivational conflicts and override
prepotent behaviors.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Choosing to m
13 ion may also enable some animals to overcome
prepotent biases, by allowing them to treat prepotent st
14 that this contributes to deficits inhibiting
prepotent but contextually inappropriate responses and t
15 spinobulbospinal mechanisms that may be the
prepotent contributors to central sensitization and deve
16 ts more vigorously approach their particular
prepotent CS and to energetically sniff and nibble it in
17 pressed approach, nibbles, and sniffs of the
prepotent CS.
18 The individually
prepotent cue is either a predictive CS+ that signals re
19 Only the
prepotent cue was enhanced as an incentive target, and a
20 veness of whichever reward CS was that rat's
prepotent cue.
21 ibitory control is required to overcome this
prepotent disposition.
22 chanisms that control the formation of these
prepotent drug-context associations remain unclear.
23 of addictive drugs produces long-lasting and
prepotent drug-cue associations that increase vulnerabil
24 its role in inhibitory control (suppressing
prepotent,
incorrect actions), recent proposals suggest
25 s-induced activity which in turn disinhibits
prepotent motivated behaviors.
26 oms show greater susceptibility to acting on
prepotent motor impulses compared to TD patients.
27 mpulsivity and the proficiency of inhibiting
prepotent motor impulses.
28 Impaired inhibition of
prepotent motor response may represent an important risk
29 ge in fMRI signal after the withholding of a
prepotent motor response.
30 n impulse inhibition: effortfully inhibiting
prepotent motor responses toward a temptation, yielding
31 strongly biased toward stimuli that inhibit
prepotent or automatic responses.
32 orcement learning model that characterizes a
prepotent (
pavlovian) bias to withhold responding in the
33 Because behavioral inhibition is a
prepotent reaction to aversive outcomes, it has been a c
34 n the drug-paired environment often serve as
prepotent relapse triggers.
35 This task contrasts frequent
prepotent responding (GO trials) with infrequent respons
36 leading to diminished abilities to suppress
prepotent responding.
37 luminance stimulus or the inhibition of this
prepotent response in favor of a saccade toward a small,
38 a broad inhibitory control capacity enabling
prepotent response suppression.
39 ognitive control task involving overcoming a
prepotent response tendency to examine the development o
40 The building up of a
prepotent response tendency was tested by manipulating t
41 Compared with a condition in which no
prepotent response was created, this condition yielded b
42 reactive control (last-minute changing of a
prepotent response), and conflict monitoring (choosing b
43 s, including response inhibition (stopping a
prepotent response), proactive control (using prior info
44 h the participant was unable to withhold the
prepotent response, this resynchronization occurred afte
45 like antisaccade, where one must suppress a
prepotent response.
46 ed to engage cognitive control to override a
prepotent response.
47 stimuli which activate few or only a single '
prepotent'
response.
48 underlie the cognitive inability to withhold
prepotent responses (motor impulsivity) and binge intake
49 ls in the anterior insula, leading to faster
prepotent responses and a reduced capacity for behaviora
50 ween appropriate selection and inhibition of
prepotent responses in cognitive paradigms, but that a w
51 with deficits in using context to establish
prepotent responses in complex paradigms and failures to
52 ortical activation may promote inappropriate
prepotent responses in LLD.
53 The ability to inhibit
prepotent responses is critical for successful goal-dire
54 in complex paradigms and failures to inhibit
prepotent responses once established.
55 aintain goal-directed behavior by inhibiting
prepotent responses or ignoring irrelevant information.
56 the rabbits learned primarily to omit their
prepotent responses to the spout on CS- trials.
57 rontal gyrus, often implicated in inhibiting
prepotent responses, connected more strongly with the st
58 and use this ability to control lower-level,
prepotent responses.
59 ation and the ability to control and inhibit
prepotent responses.
60 ere required either to generate or inhibit a
prepotent saccade response.
61 Suppression of
prepotent saccades has been shown to require proactive i
62 ve the larger one, and so had to inhibit the
prepotent selection of the larger quantity.
63 prepotent biases, by allowing them to treat
prepotent stimuli and responses more flexibly.
64 ff one of two reward-associated stimuli (its
prepotent stimulus).
65 nitive control often requires suppression of
prepotent stimulus-driven responses in favor of less pot
66 sponse may reflect deficient modification of
prepotent stimulus-response mappings in response to erro
67 an with suppressing the neural impact of the
prepotent stimulus.
68 The inhibition of a
prepotent tendency to respond produced markedly greater
69 ter maze with procedures that deterred their
prepotent thigmotaxic response.
70 e retrieval of substitutes in the context of
prepotent,
unwanted memories.
71 ior under competition between task rules and
prepotent visuomotor associations underpinning automatic