Development of Inhibitory Control in Children With Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder by the Modified Stop-Signal Task
0
Citation
11
Reference
10
Related Paper
Abstract:
ADHD is known well as a developmental disorder characterized by behavioral inhibition. The present study aimed to investigate developmental changes and characteristics of inhibitory control in children with ADHD. For this purpose, we used a stop-signal task, modifying the procedure in order to determine the timing of the stop delay so that the timing was related to individual response speed. Participants, elementary-school-age children with ADHD (N=18) and without ADHD (controls; N=64), were divided into 2 groups, younger and older. The children with ADHD had variable reaction time; the rate of their errors was high compared to the control children. Their reactions to go signals were inefficient; there were no differences between the 2 ADHD groups on the inhibition. Some children with ADHD were able to inhibit the response to go signals and used waiting strategies, as did the control children. However, the change in their inhibitory control with increasing age was slow in comparison with the control children. We found that how the strategies were used was related to inhibitory control.Keywords:
Stop signal
Inhibitory control
Response inhibition
Stop signal
Response inhibition
Inhibitory control
Stimulus (psychology)
Anticipation (artificial intelligence)
Control reconfiguration
Cite
Citations (0)
The stop-signal procedure was used to examine the development of inhibitory control. A group of 275 participants, 6 to 81 years of age, performed a visual choice reaction time (go) task and attempted to inhibit their responses to the go task when they heard a stop signal. Reaction times to the stop and go signals were used to assess performance in inhibition and response execution, respectively. Results indicated the speed of stopping becomes faster with increasing age throughout childhood, with limited evidence of slowing across adulthood. By contrast, strong evidence was obtained for age-related speeding of go-signal reaction time throughout childhood, followed by marked slowing throughout adulthood. Hierarchical regression confirmed that the age-related change in inhibitory control could not be explained by general speeding or slowing of responses. Findings are discussed in regard to the contrast between the development of inhibition and response execution and the utility of the stop-signal procedure.
Inhibitory control
Stop signal
Response inhibition
Cite
Citations (737)
Inhibitory deficits of children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are well documented. However, the specific inhibition ability (stopping an ongoing response) of preschoolers with ADHD is little reported. This study adopted the tracking stop-signal task to examine preschoolers with ADHD. Twenty-eight children with ADHD ( M = 6.1 year, SD = 0.6) were compared to 31 comparison children ( M = 6.0 year, SD = 0.6) on a measure of inhibitory control. The results showed that preschool children with ADHD performed worse than their control groups on the stop-signal task, using the omission error index, implying an attention deficit. However, preschool children with ADHD did not exhibit significantly slower stop-signal reaction times relative to the control group. The ability of controlled response inhibition of preschool children may not be mature.
Stop signal
Response inhibition
Inhibitory control
Attention deficits
Cite
Citations (4)
ADHD is known well as a developmental disorder characterized by behavioral inhibition. The present study aimed to investigate developmental changes and characteristics of inhibitory control in children with ADHD. For this purpose, we used a stop-signal task, modifying the procedure in order to determine the timing of the stop delay so that the timing was related to individual response speed. Participants, elementary-school-age children with ADHD (N=18) and without ADHD (controls; N=64), were divided into 2 groups, younger and older. The children with ADHD had variable reaction time; the rate of their errors was high compared to the control children. Their reactions to go signals were inefficient; there were no differences between the 2 ADHD groups on the inhibition. Some children with ADHD were able to inhibit the response to go signals and used waiting strategies, as did the control children. However, the change in their inhibitory control with increasing age was slow in comparison with the control children. We found that how the strategies were used was related to inhibitory control.
Stop signal
Inhibitory control
Response inhibition
Cite
Citations (0)
Theories about the functional relevance of consciousness commonly posit that higher order cognitive control functions, such as response inhibition, require consciousness. To test this assertion, the authors designed a masked stop-signal paradigm to examine whether response inhibition could be triggered and initiated by masked stop signals, which inform participants to stop an action they have begun. In 2 experiments, masked stop signals were observed to occasionally result in full response inhibition as well as to yield a slow down in the speed of responses that were not inhibited. The magnitude of this subliminally triggered response time slowing effect correlated with the efficiency measure (stop signal reaction time) of response inhibition across participants. Thus, response inhibition can be triggered unconsciously-more so in individuals who are good inhibitors and under conditions that are associated with efficient response inhibition. These results indicate that in contradiction to common theorizing, inhibitory control processes can operate outside awareness.
Response inhibition
Stop signal
Inhibitory control
Go/no go
Assertion
Persistent vegetative state
Cite
Citations (151)
Inhibitory control
Stop signal
Response inhibition
Stimulus (psychology)
Cite
Citations (44)
Stop signal
Inhibitory control
Response inhibition
Dieting
Neuromodulation
Cite
Citations (190)
Compared children with CP/ADHD, CPCU/ADHD, ADHD-only, and controls on two measures of inhibitory control: a Simon/flanker task that measured response selection and a stop signal task that measured response inhibition. Results showed: (a) ADHD was associated with both measures of inhibitory control; (b) control children had better overall performance and ADHD-only had worse response selection than the CP groups; and (c) children with CPCU/ADHD had better response inhibition than children with ADHD-only or CP/ADHD. Results suggest inhibitory control dysfunction is associated with ADHD rather than CP and that response inhibition dysfunction distinguishes children with CP/ADHD from children with CPCU/ADHD.
Inhibitory control
Stop signal
Response inhibition
Conduct disorder
Typically developing
Cite
Citations (5)
Flexible behavior requires a control system that can inhibit actions in response to changes in the environment. Recent studies suggest that people proactively adjust response parameters in anticipation of a stop signal. In three experiments, we tested the hypothesis that proactive inhibitory control involves adjusting both attentional and response settings, and we explored the relationship with other forms of proactive and anticipatory control. Subjects responded to the color of a stimulus. On some trials, an extra signal occurred. The response to this signal depended on the task context subjects were in: in the 'ignore' context, they ignored it; in the 'stop' context, they had to withhold their response; and in the 'double-response' context, they had to execute a secondary response. An analysis of event-related brain potentials for no-signal trials in the stop context revealed that proactive inhibitory control works by biasing the settings of lower-level systems that are involved in stimulus detection, action selection, and action execution. Furthermore, subjects made similar adjustments in the double-response and stop-signal contexts, indicating an overlap between various forms of proactive action control. The results of Experiment 1 also suggest an overlap between proactive inhibitory control and preparatory control in task-switching studies: both require reconfiguration of task-set parameters to bias or alter subordinate processes. We conclude that much of the top-down control in response inhibition tasks takes place before the inhibition signal is presented.
Stop signal
Response inhibition
Inhibitory control
Anticipation (artificial intelligence)
Stimulus (psychology)
Control reconfiguration
Response bias
Cite
Citations (79)
Response inhibition is frequently measured by the Go/no-go and Stop-signal tasks. These two are often used indiscriminately under the assumption that both measure similar inhibitory control abilities. However, accumulating evidence show differences in both tasks' modulations, raising the question of whether they tap into equivalent cognitive mechanisms. In the current study, a comparison of the performance in both tasks took place under the influence of negative stimuli, following the assumption that ''controlled inhibition'', as measured by Stop-signal, but not ''automatic inhibition'', as measured by Go/no-go, will be affected. 54 young adults performed a task in which negative pictures, neutral pictures or no-pictures preceded go trials, no-go trials, and stop-trials. While the exposure to negative pictures impaired performance on go trials and improved the inhibitory capacity in Stop-signal task, the inhibitory performance in Go/no-go task was generally unaffected. The results support the conceptualization of different mechanisms operated by both tasks, thus emphasizing the necessity to thoroughly fathom both inhibitory processes and identify their corresponding cognitive measures. Implications regarding the usage of cognitive tasks for strengthening inhibitory capacity among individuals struggling with inhibitory impairments are discussed.
Stop signal
Go/no go
Response inhibition
Inhibitory control
Cite
Citations (106)