↓ Skip to main content

“Don׳t” versus “Won׳t”: Principles, mechanisms, and intention in action inhibition

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychologia, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
“Don׳t” versus “Won׳t”: Principles, mechanisms, and intention in action inhibition
Published in
Neuropsychologia, September 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.09.005
Pubmed ID
Authors

K. Richard Ridderinkhof, Wery P.M. van den Wildenberg, Marcel Brass

Abstract

The aim of the present review is to provide a theoretical analysis of the role of intentions in inhibition. We will first outline four dimensions along which inhibition can be categorized: intentionality, timing, specificity, and the nature of the to-be-inhibited action. Next, we relate the concept of inhibition to theories of intentional action. In particular, we integrate ideomotor theory with motor control theories that involve predictive forward modeling of the consequences of one׳s action, and evaluate how the dimensional classification of inhibition fits into such an integrative approach. Furthermore, we will outline testable predictions that derive from this novel hypothesis of ideomotor inhibition. We then discuss the viability of the ideomotor inhibition hypothesis and our classification in view of the available evidence on the neural mechanisms of action inhibition, indicating that sensorimotor and ideomotor inhibition engages largely overlapping networks with additional recruitment of dFMC for ideomotor inhibition.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 2%
France 2 2%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 100 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 27%
Researcher 21 20%
Student > Master 8 8%
Professor 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 5%
Other 20 19%
Unknown 15 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 49 47%
Neuroscience 13 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 21 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 October 2014.
All research outputs
#16,047,334
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychologia
#2,676
of 4,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,359
of 246,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychologia
#45
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,173 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 246,371 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.