Action cancellation and salience of the cancellation signal

Weber et al. (2024, JoCN) report that cancelation speed is lower when go and stop signals share modality (auditory or visual).This leads them to a number of claims and important suggestions for further research: (1) Stop and go processes do NOT operate independently, unlike the commonly embraced assumptions of the horse-race model; (2) The dependence of cancelation speed on go-signal modality reflects a differential contribution of psychological refractoriness (PR); (3) Neuroimaging or electroencephalographic techniques combined with varying go and stop modalities will provide further insight in the exact mechanisms of crossmodality dependence of cancelation speed.In response I argue: (1) There is recent research, not cited by Weber et al., but consistent with their suggestion of electroencephalographic techniques combined with varying go and stop modalities; (2) This research parcellated cancelation-signal processing in two subprocesses; (3) In turn, IF action cancellation depends on PR, this dependence concerns only one of these subprocesses.