Overall, then, if inhibition measures should be stable, we haven't found them yet. And if we accept that action stopping performance could be situational, we not only need to rethink how we often interpret inhibition measures, but we still have plenty of work to do to understand what they reflect.

We also tend to think of response inhibition as an ability - something stable across time and contexts - but we show that inhibition measures are unstable over time.
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...

I don't think we need an inhibition process for this, it could easily reflect a shared reliance on something else.
@alinebompas.bsky.social shows that we cannot ignore sensory delays when interpreting the SSRT (and by extension, measures that co-vary with it)
mathpsych.org/presentation...

The SSRT overestimates when stopping is implemented by the brain, and this seems to apply to some other measures identified via it as well. But we also show that inhibition measures show robust associations with each other - and why co-vary if not due to inhibition?
www.nature.com/articles/s41...

At their core, many such assumptions rely on positing a particular top-down inhibition process allowing us to stop action. Consequently, much work aims to identify markers of this process, and this again tends to rely on estimates of stopping speed, and the SSRT in particular.