Abstract
Response inhibition (RI), the ability to suppress a prepotent or ongoing action in response to sensory information, is a core control function that supports adaptive behaviour in everyday life, sport, and rehabilitation. Although RI has been widely studied in cognitive neuroscience and clinical research, reviews have rarely focused specifically on how RI relates to physical activity. This Mini Review addresses this gap by integrating three strands: (i) conceptual foundations of RI including neural mechanisms supporting proactive and reactive inhibition, (ii) elite athletes as a model of long-term adaptation, and (iii) exercise-induced modulation of RI. We first outline the distinction between proactive and reactive inhibition and summarise representative behavioural paradigms for their assessment. We then review converging evidence implicating cortico-basal ganglia circuit in stopping, highlighting candidate pathways that may differentially support anticipatory and stimulus-driven control. Building on this mechanistic framework, we discuss athlete research as a natural model for understanding experience-dependent changes in RI, and we summarise evidence that acute exercise can transiently modulate inhibitory performance, with implications for ageing and rehabilitation. By synthesising definitions, neural substrates, adaptive models, and exercise effects, we aim to advance a practical and evaluatable framework for the assessment and targeting of RI in sport, clinical rehabilitation, and daily functioning.
1 Inhibitory control: conceptual foundations and definition
Inhibitory control is a core component of executive function that enables suppression of inappropriate actions and irrelevant information (, ). Within this broad construct, response inhibition (RI), the capacity to cancel or withhold motor plans and actions, has been studied extensively because it can be operationalised with well-characterised behavioural paradigms and linked to specific neural circuits. Clinically, impaired RI is associated with impulsive and maladaptive behaviours and has been implicated across psychiatric conditions, including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and several forms of addiction (, ).
RI is commonly conceptualised as comprising proactive and reactive inhibition (–). Proactive inhibition refers to anticipatory, goal-driven control that configures the motor system in advance when stopping may become necessary. This preparatory state can increase the effectiveness of subsequent stopping by adjusting response readiness and pre-engaging inhibitory pathways (). In contrast, reactive inhibition is a stimulus-driven process triggered by an external stop signal, resulting in rapid cancellation of an ongoing or imminent action (). Because reactive stopping must override motor commands that are already unfolding, it is often time-critical and can be vulnerable under high cognitive load or contextual uncertainty (). Although proactive and reactive inhibition are frequently treated as separable components, they are typically considered to rely on partially shared, partially distinct mechanisms (, ). In sport and exercise contexts, proactive inhibition is most relevant when athletes can anticipate potential holding or/and changing actions, whereas reactive inhibition is emphasised when cancelling action must be initiated rapidly in response to unpredictable external events.
Two paradigms are widely used to index these components. In the Go/NoGo task (GNT), participants respond rapidly to Go stimuli and withhold responses to NoGo stimuli; performance is typically quantified using reaction times (RTs) on Go trials and commission errors on NoGo trials. In the stop-signal task (SST), participants perform a speeded choice response to Go stimuli but must cancel their response when an infrequent stop signal appears shortly after the Go cue. Because the stop signal is not predictable, the SST is commonly used to index reactive inhibition, with stop-signal reaction time (SSRT) providing an estimate of stopping latency (, , ). Despite extensive use, existing evidence remains insufficient to determine the degree to which GNT and SST isolate dissociable inhibitory processes (, ). Direct within-participant comparisons that include both tasks are therefore important for clarifying common and distinct behavioural and neural signatures of proactive and reactive inhibition (, ).
Clarifying these components benefits from a mechanistic account of the underlying neural circuitry. Neuroimaging and electrophysiological studies consistently implicate a cortico-basal ganglia network in stopping, with converging evidence for cortical nodes such as the right inferior frontal gyrus and the pre-supplementary motor area (, ). Within this network, the hyperdirect front-subthalamic pathway has been proposed to support rapid, global suppression, consistent with the time-critical demands of reactive inhibition (, ). Proactive inhibition, by contrast, is often described as a preparatory mode that can be configured in advance, plausibly relying more strongly on fronto-striatal-pallidal circuit that supports goal-dependent adjustments of response readiness (). Importantly, connectivity evidence suggests that these pathways may operate in a complementary manner rather than as a strict dichotomy. Both proactive and reactive demands can modulate interactions within an IFG-SMA-STN-M1 circuit, while proactive control may additionally recruit longer front-striatal routes (, ). Finally, meta-analytic work indicates that basal ganglia mechanisms implicated in motor stopping overlap with those involved in suppressing unwanted memory retrieval, suggesting a broader role of basal ganglia circuit in inhibitory control across domains (). Together, these neural accounts motivate the view that inhibitory control is shaped by experience and context, and they provide a mechanistic rationale for examining RI in athletes and in relation to physical activity.
2 Response inhibition in the athlete
Athletes provide a useful model for understanding response inhibition because many sports require rapid action selection under time pressure, distraction, and continuously changing situational demands, where inappropriate responses must be withheld or cancelled (20). These environments impose recurrent demands on inhibitory control in sport-specific contexts and encourage anticipatory regulation of action readiness when stopping is plausible but uncertain. This perspective aligns with the distinction between open-skill and closed-skill sports, in which open-skill athletes are assumed to face more frequent and varied inhibition demands embedded in training and competition (21, 22). Complementing laboratory paradigms, sport-relevant decision-making tasks further suggest that long-term practice in sports with strong inhibitory components can translate into better task performance and more rapid engagement of task-relevant functional processes (23). Collectively, athlete-focused research offers an informative approach for characterising how sport-specific experience shapes the mechanisms of response inhibition.
Evidence on proactive aspects of RI in athletes has often been drawn from GNT studies, but findings are mixed and depend strongly on how proactive control is operationalised. Athlete-non-athlete differences are detected more consistently in RT-related indices, including faster responding, reduced trial-to-trial variability, and distributional shifts in RT, patterns commonly interpreted as reflecting more efficient response preparation and action selection shaped by sport-specific practice (23–26). By contrast, group differences in commission errors are reported less frequently, and evidence for reliably lower false-alarm rates in athletes remains limited (27). This divergence likely reflects measurement properties. In typical GNT implementations, false-alarm rates can be low in healthy samples, limiting sensitivity to individual or group differences (28). Moreover, false alarms are strongly influenced by task parameters (for example, NoGo probability and stimulus timing) and by instruction-induced speed-accuracy settings, each of which can materially alter response tendencies and error rates (29–32). Notably, several studies report robust electrophysiological differences, such as earlier and or larger NoGo N2 and altered NoGo P3, even when behavioural performance is comparable, suggesting experience-dependent changes in the efficiency and temporal dynamics of inhibitory processing (20, 33, 34). Overall, the GNT literature indicates that conclusions about proactive inhibition in athletes hinge on construct definition and measurement choice, underscoring the value of integrating behavioural and neurophysiological markers.
Reactive inhibition has been examined extensively using the SST, with SSRT providing a well-established behavioural index. Meta-analytic evidence indicates that athletes show shorter SSRTs than non-athletes, with a small but statistically reliable overall effect corresponding to an estimated mean difference of approximately 17 ms (35). This benefit appears more robust in externally paced, cognitively demanding sports, where athletes must repeatedly cancel or revise actions under severe time constraints and rapidly changing perceptual-motor demands (36). Consistent with this account, tennis players (open-skill) have been reported to exhibit shorter SSRTs than swimmers (closed-skill) and sedentary controls, whereas swimmers did not differ from controls (36). However, sport type is not a deterministic moderator. Both tennis players and swimmers have also been shown to outperform non-athletes with no reliable difference between athlete groups, suggesting that reactive stopping can be enhanced in some closed-skill cohorts depending on training history and sample characteristics (21). Null findings have nevertheless been reported, including no SSRT differences among taekwondo athletes, swimmers, and controls (37) and no SSRT differences between endurance winter-sport athletes and non-athletes (38). Importantly, our study supports the possibility of more generalisable enhancements in reactive stopping by showing shorter SSRTs in kendo athletes than non-athletes across visual, auditory, and somatosensory stop signals (39). Beyond group means, SSRT has been linked to sport performance indicators such as self-reports and coaches' ratings, particularly at higher expertise levels, positioning reactive inhibition as a plausible, though modest, candidate marker of athletic expertise (35, 40). Interpretation should also consider SST implementation because strategic response slowing and feedback contingencies can influence stopping performance and may contribute to heterogeneity across studies (21). These findings motivate the complementary question of whether inhibitory control can also be modulated acutely by exercise bouts or targeted interventions, beyond longer-term adaptations associated with sport expertise.
3 Effects of exercise interventions on response inhibition
Acute exercise can modulate proactive inhibition indexed by the GNT, but the literature is best characterised as dose- and timing-dependent. When the GNT is administered during exercise, very high intensity can impair performance. For example, short-duration treadmill running at high intensity produced slower RTs and more errors relative to rest or moderate intensity, consistent with an arousal-fatigue trade-off (41). When inhibition is assessed after exercise, benefits are more likely to emerge under conditions of elevated executive demand or vulnerability. In college students with smartphone addiction, a single bout of aerobic exercise improved RI (42). Similarly, in heroin addicts, acute aerobic exercise was associated with improved RI alongside electrophysiological modulations, suggesting transient facilitation of control-related processing in a clinical population (43). However, behavioural indices may remain unchanged even when neurophysiological markers shift. In young adults with obesity, moderate-intensity exercise increased NoGo-N2 amplitude without clear behavioural improvement, implying facilitation of early inhibitory or conflict-monitoring processes that does not necessarily translate into overt accuracy gains (44). Relatedly, among smokers with nicotine dependence, acute yoga and aerobic exercise altered effect and neurocognitive markers (for example, P3 amplitude) with broadly comparable behavioural performance, indicating that acute exercise bouts may influence processing efficiency even when accuracy is stable (45). Overall, acute effects on proactive inhibition appear most detectable when intensity is kept within an optimal range, often moderate, and when outcomes include both behavioural and neurophysiological indices.
Evidence for acute exercise effects on reactive inhibition, operationalised as SSRT in the SST, is comparatively more convergent in showing transient improvements in stopping efficiency, particularly after moderate-to-vigorous aerobic exercise. A foundational time-course study reported that moderate-intensity cycling shortened SSRT and sped Go responding with benefits persisting for tens of minutes after the bout (46). Acute benefits have also been documented in high-demand populations. In male violent perpetrators, a single aerobic session improved inhibitory control in an emotional SST (47). In adults with ADHD, acute aerobic exercise at moderate and high intensities improved inhibitory control and was accompanied by changes in corticospinal excitability assessed by TMS, suggesting that acute exercise can influence both behavioural stopping and its physiological substrates (48). Taken together, the SST literature supports a model in which acute exercise can temporarily sharpen reactive stopping, while variability across studies is expected due to differences in intensity prescription, recovery interval, and SST implementation details that affect strategic slowing and stopping probability (46, 48).
Future work should move beyond testing whether acute exercise effects exist and instead specify which component is modulated, under what conditions, and for whom. Dose-response designs that vary intensity, duration, and modality, together with systematic manipulation of measurement timing, are needed to separate inhibitory modulation from non-specific arousal or fatigue effects (46). Because the GNT and SST are sensitive to speed-accuracy trade-offs and, in the SST, strategic slowing, studies should implement controls that minimise these confounds and report robust metrics, including distributional and variability indices for RT and model-consistent SSRT estimation (, 30, 49). Behavioural endpoints should be complemented by neural measures (ERP, fNIRS or fMRI, TMS) to detect changes in processing efficiency when accuracy is constrained by ceiling or floor effects (30). Of these approaches, event-related electrophysiological measures such as ERPs (event-related potentials) and event-related oscillatory indices are well suited for resolving the temporal dynamics of inhibitory processing. ERP components such as N2 and P3 can index conflict monitoring and inhibitory processing, although their functional specificity depends on task demands and should be interpreted cautiously; oscillatory markers (e.g., midfrontal theta and frontal alpha/beta dynamics) provide complementary evidence about transient changes in control implementation. Recent acute-exercise studies have begun to test whether these electrophysiological indices during inhibition tasks change under specific exercise and task-demand combinations, but findings appear mixed across markers and protocols, underscoring the need for better-powered and better-controlled mechanistic designs (50, 51). Finally, incorporating moderators such as baseline fitness, sleep, and symptom burden will help explain heterogeneity and identify contexts in which acute exercise yields reliable benefits (48). Together, this approach will clarify when and why proactive vs. reactive inhibition is transiently altered by exercise and will provide a mechanistic bridge to longer-term interventions.
4 Translational implications
Distinguishing proactive and reactive inhibition provides a useful conceptual framework for thinking about control modes and their task expressions (, 52). In clinical and applied settings, this distinction may also help generate hypotheses about component-specific vulnerabilities and intervention targets by linking behavioural phenotypes to partially separable underlying neural systems across disorders. Tasks that emphasise proactive control (e.g., go/no-go variants that manipulate expectancies or cue-based preparation) can be informative when strategic adjustments and anticipatory control are central, whereas stop-signal paradigms and SSRT better capture time-critical cancellation demands (49). Emerging clinical evidence suggests that these components can be differentially affected across disorders: for example, early-stage Parkinson's disease has been reported to show a more pronounced impairment in reactive stopping than in proactive control (53). Moreover, exercise-based interventions may differentially modulate inhibition components; one controlled study in Parkinson's disease reported improvements in reactive inhibition with no clear change in proactive inhibition (54). In stroke rehabilitation, short-term aerobic exercise training has also been linked to improved inhibitory control alongside changes in stimulus-evoked electrophysiological markers, supporting the plausibility of component-specific prescription strategies (55). Together with umbrella-level evidence that exercise benefits executive function across populations (56), these findings support a more explicit component-to-prescription mapping when extending RI research beyond sport performance.
5 Conclusion
This mini review synthesised conceptual, neural, and applied evidence linking response inhibition and physical activity. Overall, long-term sport-specific experience, particularly in cognitively demanding and externally paced sports, is associated with modest advantages in reactive inhibition, whereas evidence for proactive inhibition in athletes depends strongly on task implementation and measurement choice (35, 40). Acute exercise can also modulate RI, with more consistent behavioural benefits for reactive stopping after moderate-to-vigorous aerobic bouts and more variable effects for proactive inhibition that may be detected more sensitively when behavioural and neurophysiological outcomes are combined (46, 48). Moving forward, harmonised task implementation and multimodal measurement will be essential for identifying exercise prescriptions that optimise specific components of response inhibition in sport, rehabilitation, and healthy ageing programmes.
A suggested framework for experimental and practical implementations is as follows: (1) define whether the intended target is proactive inhibition (anticipatory control) or reactive inhibition (stopping/cancellation); (2) select tasks and metrics that align with that target and explicitly report potential speed–accuracy trade-offs; (3) when feasible, combine behavioural outcomes with neural markers to help separate true inhibitory changes from strategy; and (4) report exercise dose and the timing of testing/training relative to the exercise bout to facilitate cross-study synthesis and translation into practice.
Statements
Author contributions
DS: Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Resources, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Project administration, Supervision, Formal analysis, Data curation, Methodology, Software.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Kakenhi (Grant numbers: 21H03310 and 24K02847).
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. Generative AI was used for language editing (improving grammar, clarity, and concision) and for restructuring selected sentences/paragraphs to enhance readability. All content was reviewed, verified, and edited by the author, who takes full responsibility for the manuscript, including the accuracy of statements, interpretations, and citations.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1.
DiamondA. Executive functions. Annu Rev Psychol. (2013) 64:135–68. 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750
2.
MiyakeAFriedmanNPEmersonMJWitzkiAHHowerterAWagerTD. The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cogn Psychol. (2000) 41(1):49–100. 10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
3.
LipszycJSchacharR. Inhibitory control and psychopathology: a meta-analysis of studies using the stop signal task. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. (2010) 16(6):1064–76. 10.1017/S1355617710000895
4.
BariARobbinsTW. Inhibition and impulsivity: behavioral and neural basis of response control. Prog Neurobiol. (2013) 108:44–79. 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2013.06.005
5.
AronAR. From reactive to proactive and selective control: developing a richer model for stopping inappropriate responses. Biol Psychiatry. (2011) 69(12):e55–68. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.07.024
6.
KenemansJL. Specific proactive and generic reactive inhibition. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. (2015) 56:115–26. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.06.011
7.
VerbruggenFLoganGD. Response inhibition in the stop-signal paradigm. Trends Cogn Sci. (2008) 12(11):418–24. 10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.005
8.
JahfariSStinearCMClaffeyMVerbruggenFAronAR. Responding with restraint: what are the neurocognitive mechanisms?J Cogn Neurosci. (2010) 22(7):1479–92. 10.1162/jocn.2009.21307
9.
GuoYSchmitzTWMurMFerreiraCSAndersonMC. A supramodal role of the basal ganglia in memory and motor inhibition: meta-analytic evidence. Neuropsychologia. (2018) 108:117–34. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.11.033
10.
RaudLWesterhausenRDooleyNHusterRJ. Differences in unity: the go/no-go and stop signal tasks rely on different mechanisms. Neuroimage. (2020) 210:116582. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116582
11.
LoganGD. It was 40 years ago today: reflections “on the ability to inhibit simple and choice reaction time responses: a model and a method” by Logan et al. (1984). J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. (2025) 51(10):1303–14. 10.1037/xhp0001303
12.
LoganGDCowanWBDavisKA. On the ability to inhibit simple and choice reaction time responses: a model and a method. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. (1984) 10(2):276–91. 10.1037//0096-1523.10.2.276
13.
RaudLHusterRJ. The temporal dynamics of response inhibition and their modulation by cognitive control. Brain Topogr. (2017) 30(4):486–501. 10.1007/s10548-017-0566-y
14.
SebastianAPohlMFKlöppelSFeigeBLangeTStahlCet alDisentangling common and specific neural subprocesses of response inhibition. Neuroimage. (2013) 64:601–15. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.09.020
15.
IkarashiKSatoDFujimotoTEdamaMBabaYYamashiroK. Response inhibitory control varies with different sensory modalities. Cereb Cortex. (2022) 32(2):275–85. 10.1093/cercor/bhab207
16.
RaeCLHughesLEWeaverCAndersonMCRoweJB. Selection and stopping in voluntary action: a meta-analysis and combined fMRI study. Neuroimage. (2014) 86:381–91. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.10.012
17.
SchaumMPinzutiESebastianALiebKFriesPMobascherAet alRight inferior frontal gyrus implements motor inhibitory control via beta-band oscillations in humans. Elife. (2021) 10:e61679. 10.7554/eLife.61679
18.
JahfariSWaldorpLvan den WildenbergWPMScholteHSRidderinkhofKRForstmannBU. Effective connectivity reveals important roles for both the hyperdirect (fronto-subthalamic) and the indirect (fronto-striatal-pallidal) fronto-basal ganglia pathways during response inhibition. J Neurosci. (2011) 31(18):6891–9. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5253-10.2011
19.
ZhangFIwakiS. Common neural network for different functions: an investigation of proactive and reactive inhibition. Front Behav Neurosci. (2019) 13:124. 10.3389/fnbeh.2019.00124
20.
YaoZ-FFuH-LLiangC-WLiY-JWangC-H. Electrophysiological differences in inhibitory control processing between collegiate level soccer players and non-athletes in the absence of performance differences. Brain Cogn. (2024) 178:106179. 10.1016/j.bandc.2024.106179
21.
BraviRGavazziGBenedettiVGiovannelliFGrassoSPanconiGet alEffect of different sport environments on proactive and reactive motor inhibition: a study on open- and closed-skilled athletes via mouse-tracking procedure. Front Psychol. (2022) 13:1042705. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1042705
22.
YouYMaYJiZMengFLiAZhangC. Unconscious response inhibition differences between table tennis athletes and non-athletes. PeerJ. (2018) 6:e5548. 10.7717/peerj.5548
23.
SimonetMRuggeriPSallardEBarralJ. The field of expertise modulates the time course of neural processes associated with inhibitory control in a sport decision-making task. Sci Rep. (2022) 12(1):7657–3. 10.1038/s41598-022-11580-3
24.
KidaNOdaSMatsumuraM. Intensive baseball practice improves the go/nogo reaction time, but not the simple reaction time. Brain ResearchCognitive Brain Research. (2005) 22(2):257–64. 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.09.003
25.
MatsutakeTNakataHMatsuoGNatsuharaTZippoKWatanabeKet alFast and stable responses during decision making require strong inhibitory processes in soccer players. Brain Sci. (2024) 14(3):199. 10.3390/brainsci14030199
26.
WangC-HFuH-LKaoS-CMoreauDYangC-T. Systems factorial technology provides novel insights into the cognitive processing characteristics of open-skill athletes. Psychol Sport Exerc. (2023) 66:102395. 10.1016/j.psychsport.2023.102395
27.
ZhangDDingHWangXQiCLuoY. Enhanced response inhibition in experienced fencers. Sci Rep. (2015) 5:16282. 10.1038/srep16282
28.
MeuleA. Reporting and interpreting task performance in go/no-go affective shifting tasks. Front Psychol. (2017) 8:701. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00701
29.
BenikosNJohnstoneSJRoodenrysSJ. Varying task difficulty in the go/nogo task: the effects of inhibitory control, arousal, and perceived effort on ERP components. Int J Psychophysiol. (2013) 87(3):262–72. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2012.08.005
30.
HeitzRP. The speed-accuracy tradeoff: history, physiology, methodology, and behavior. Front Neurosci. (2014) 8:150. 10.3389/fnins.2014.00150
31.
YoungMESutherlandSCMcCoyAW. Optimal go/no-go ratios to maximize false alarms. Behav Res Methods. (2018) 50(3):1020–9. 10.3758/s13428-017-0923-5
32.
ZamoranoFBillekePHurtadoJMLópezVCarrascoXOssandónTet alTemporal constraints of behavioral inhibition: relevance of inter-stimulus interval in a go-nogo task. PLoS One. (2014) 9(1):e87232. 10.1371/journal.pone.0087232
33.
TaddeiFBultriniASpinelliDDi RussoF. Neural correlates of attentional and executive processing in middle-age fencers. Med Sci Sports Exercise. (2012) 44(6):1057–66. 10.1249/MSS.0b013e31824529c2
34.
YamashiroKSatoDOnishiHSugawaraKNakazawaSShimojoHet alSkill-specific changes in somatosensory nogo potentials in baseball players. PLoS One. (2015) 10(11):e0142581. 10.1371/journal.pone.0142581
35.
Albaladejo-GarcíaCGarcía-AguilarFMorenoFJ. The role of inhibitory control in sport performance: systematic review and meta-analysis in stop-signal paradigm. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. (2023) 147:105108. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105108
36.
WangC-HChangC-CLiangY-MShihC-MChiuW-STsengPet alOpen vs. closed skill sports and the modulation of inhibitory control. PLoS One. (2013) 8(2):e55773. 10.1371/journal.pone.0055773
37.
YuCCMuggletonNGChenCYKoCHLiuS. The comparisons of inhibitory control and post-error behaviors between different types of athletes and physically inactive adults. PLoS One. (2021) 16(8):e0256272. 10.1371/journal.pone.0256272
38.
ErikssonLJKSundinÖJanssonB. Exploring response inhibition, the behavioral inhibition system and possible sex differences in athletes and non-athletes. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2023) 20(14):6340. 10.3390/ijerph20146340
39.
NakajimaFIkarashiKYamashiroKOchiGFujimotoTSatoD. Neural representation of proactive and reactive inhibitory control adaptations across sensory modalities. Cereb Cortex. (2025) 35(10):bhaf272. 10.1093/cercor/bhaf272
40.
HagyardJBrimmellJEdwardsEJVaughanRS. Inhibitory control across athletic expertise and its relationship with sport performance. J Sport Exerc Psychol. (2021) 43(1):14–27. 10.1123/jsep.2020-0043
41.
SmithMTallisJMillerAClarkeNDGuimarães-FerreiraLDuncanMJ. The effect of exercise intensity on cognitive performance during short duration treadmill running. J Hum Kinet. (2016) 51:27–35. 10.1515/hukin-2015-0167
42.
FanHQiSHuangGXuZ. Effect of acute aerobic exercise on inhibitory control of college students with smartphone addiction. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. (2021) 2021:5530126. 10.1155/2021/5530126
43.
WangDZhuTChenJLuYZhouCChangYK. Acute aerobic exercise ameliorates cravings and inhibitory control in heroin addicts: evidence from event-related potentials and frequency bands. Front Psychol. (2020) 11:561590. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.561590
44.
XieCHuangTWangYWangPChenYQianJet alThe impact of acute aerobic exercise on general and food-related inhibitory function among young adults with obesity: an event-related potential (ERP) study. Brain Sci. (2025) 15(1):59. 10.3390/brainsci15010059
45.
KimHKimJWooMKimT. Changes in inhibitory control, craving and affect after yoga vs. aerobic exercise among smokers with nicotine dependence. Front Psychiatry. (2022) 13:940415. 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.940415
46.
JoyceJGraydonJMcMorrisTDavrancheK. The time course effect of moderate intensity exercise on response execution and response inhibition. Brain Cogn. (2009) 71(1):14–9. 10.1016/j.bandc.2009.03.004
47.
YuCCChenCYMuggletonNGKoCHLiuS. Acute exercise improves inhibitory control but not error detection in male violent perpetrators: an ERPs study with the emotional stop signal task. Front Hum Neurosci. (2022) 16:796180. 10.3389/fnhum.2022.796180
48.
WangYHGauSFYangLKChangJCCheongPLKuoHI. Acute aerobic exercise at different intensities modulates inhibitory control and cortical excitability in adults with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Asian J Psychiatr. (2024) 95:103993. 10.1016/j.ajp.2024.103993
49.
VerbruggenFAronARBandGPBesteCBissettPGBrockettATet alA consensus guide to capturing the ability to inhibit actions and impulsive behaviors in the stop-signal task. Elife. (2019) 8:e46323. 10.7554/eLife.46323
50.
ChuehTYHungCLChangYKHuangCJHungTM. Effects of cognitive demand during acute exercise on inhibitory control and its electrophysiological indices: a randomized crossover study. Physiol Behav. (2023) 265:114148. 10.1016/j.physbeh.2023.114148
51.
HsiehS-SMcGowanALChandlerMCPontifexMB. Acute moderate-intensity aerobic exercise facilitates processing speed involving inhibitory control but not neuroelectric Index of control process and cognitive integration. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol. (2025) 23(6):937–54. 10.1080/1612197X.2024.2365374
52.
BraverTS. The variable nature of cognitive control: a dual mechanisms framework. Trends Cogn Sci. (2012) 16(2):106–13. 10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.010
53.
Di CaprioVModugnoNManciniCOlivolaEMirabellaG. Early-stage Parkinson’s patients show selective impairment in reactive but not proactive inhibition. Mov Disord. (2020) 35(3):409–18. 10.1002/mds.27920
54.
WangZPiYLWuYWeiJLiYZhangJet alSelective effects of exercise on reactive and proactive inhibition in Parkinson’s disease. PeerJ. (2022) 10:e13628. 10.7717/peerj.13628
55.
PalmerJAWhitakerAAPayneAMBartschBLReismanDSBoynePEet alAerobic exercise improves cortical inhibitory function after stroke: a preliminary investigation. J Neurol Phys Ther. (2024) 48(2):83–93. 10.1097/npt.0000000000000453
56.
SinghBBennettHMiatkeADumuidDCurtisRFergusonTet alEffectiveness of exercise for improving cognition, memory and executive function: a systematic umbrella review and meta-meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. (2025) 59(12):866–76. 10.1136/bjsports-2024-108589
Summary
Keywords
athlete, exercise, proactive inhibition, reactive inhibition, response inhibition
Citation
Sato D (2026) Response inhibition and exercise: from theory to translational practice. Front. Rehabil. Sci. 7:1778941. doi: 10.3389/fresc.2026.1778941
Received
31 December 2025
Revised
05 February 2026
Accepted
12 February 2026
Published
04 March 2026
Volume
7 - 2026
Edited by
Halley B. Alexander, Wake Forest University, United States
Reviewed by
Jia-Hao Wu, The Pennsylvania State University (PSU), United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Sato.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Daisuke Sato sato.daisuke.fw@u.tsukuba.ac.jp
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.