{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025029103608847497, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0017462165308498253, 'mean_word_length': 5.414179104477612, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reactive inhibition capacities predict proactive adjustments after an error, but not in risk-takers

According to the dual mechanisms of cognitive control, both reactive and proactive mechanisms are involved in adjusting behaviors when those are no longer appropriate to the environment. These mechanisms follow a computational tradeoff between costs and benefits, orienting the choice towards one or the other control mechanisms. To our knowledge, this trade-off between reactive and proactive processes has not been empirically challenged. Moreover, few studies have investigated the influence of inter-individual characteristics on this trade-off. In the current study, we focused on risk-taking propensity. A total of 176 healthy adults performed two cognitive control tasks (the Simon, the Stop Signal tasks) and a risk-taking assessment (the Balloon Analog Risk Taking, BART). For each individual, the Stop Signal Reaction Time (SSRT) was used to assess reactive inhibition capacities and the mean duration of the button press in the BART was used as an index of risk-taking propensity. The post-error slowing (PES) in the Simon task was used as a marker of the individuals’ tendency to proactively adjust their behavior after an error. Our results showed that smaller SSRT, revealing better reactive inhibition capacities, were associated with shorter PES, suggesting less involvement of proactive adjustments. The variation in proactive adjustments as a function of reactive inhibition capacities was observed in the low risk-taking group only. In individuals with high risk-taking propensity, poor reactive inhibition capacities were not compensated by greater involvement of proactive behavioral adjustments.