Although the benefit of temporal predictability for behavior is long-established, recent studies provide evidence that knowing when an important event will occur comes at the cost of greater impulsivity. Here, we investigated the neural basis of inhibiting actions to temporally predictable targets using an EEG–EMG method. In our temporally cued version of the stop-signal paradigm (two-choice task), participants used temporal information delivered by a symbolic cue to speed their responses to the target. In a quarter of the trials, an auditory signal indicated that participants had to inhibit their actions. Behavioral results showed that although temporal cues speeded RTs, they also impaired the ability to stop actions as indexed by longer stop-signal reaction time. In line with behavioral benefits of temporal predictability, EEG data demonstrated that acting at temporally predictable moments facilitated response selection at the cortical level (reduced frontocentral negativity just before the response). Likewise, activity of the motor cortex involved in suppression of incorrect response hand was stronger for temporally predictable events. Thus, by keeping an incorrect response in check, temporal predictability likely enabled faster implementation of the correct response. Importantly, there was no effect of temporal cues on the EMG-derived index of online, within-trial inhibition of subthreshold impulses. This result shows that although participants were more prone to execute a fast response to temporally predictable targets, their inhibitory control was, in fact, unaffected by temporal cues. Altogether, our results demonstrate that greater impulsivity when responding to temporally predictable events is paralleled by enhanced neural motor processes involved in response selection and implementation rather than impaired inhibitory control.

The brain can anticipate the time of imminent events to optimize sensorimotor processing. Yet, there can be behavioral costs of temporal predictability under situations of response conflict. Here, we sought to identify the neural basis of these costs and benefits by examining motor control processes in a combined EEG–EMG study. We recorded electrophysiological markers of response activation and inhibition over motor cortex when the onset-time of visual targets could be predicted, or not, and when responses necessitated conflict resolution, or not. If stimuli were temporally predictable but evoked conflicting responses, we observed increased intertrial consistency in the delta range over the motor cortex involved in response implementation, perhaps reflecting increased response difficulty. More importantly, temporal predictability differentially modulated motor cortex activity as a function of response conflict before the response was even initiated. This effect occurred in the hemisphere ipsilateral to the response, which is involved in inhibiting unwanted actions. If target features all triggered the same response, temporal predictability increased cortical inhibition of the incorrect response hand. Conversely, if different target features triggered two conflicting responses, temporal predictability decreased inhibition of the incorrect, yet prepotent, response. This dissociation reconciles the well-established behavioral benefits of temporal predictability for nonconflicting responses as well as its costs for conflicting ones by providing an elegant mechanism that operates selectively over the motor cortex involved in suppressing inappropriate actions just before response initiation. Taken together, our results demonstrate that temporal information differentially guides motor activity depending on response choice complexity.