Reliability of triggering inhibitory process is a better predictor of impulsivity than SSRT
65
Citation
104
Reference
10
Related Paper
Citation Trend
Keywords:
Stop signal
Impulse control
Response inhibition
Stimulus (psychology)
Inhibitory control
Abstract Inhibition, the ability to withhold a response or to stop an initiated response, is a necessary cognitive function that can be vulnerable to an impairment. High levels of impulsivity have been shown to impact response inhibition and/or cognitive task performance. The present study investigated the spectral and spatio-temporal dynamics of response inhibition, during a combined go/no-go/stop-signal task, using magnetoencephalography (MEG) in a healthy undergraduate student population. Participants were divided by their level of impulsivity, as assessed by self-report measures, to explore potential differences between high (n=17) and low (n=17) impulsivity groups. Results showed that individuals scoring high on impulsivity failed significantly more NOGO and STOP trials than those scoring low, but no significant differences were found between stop-signal reaction times. During NOGO and STOP conditions, high impulsivity individuals showed significantly smaller M1 components in posterior regions, which could suggest an attentional processing deficit. During NOGO trials, the M2 component was found to be reduced in individuals scoring high, possibly reflecting less pre-motor inhibition efficiency, whereas in STOP trials, the network involved in the stopping process was engaged later in high impulsivity individuals. The high impulsivity group also engaged frontal networks more during the STOP-M3 component only, possibly as a late compensatory process. The lack of response time differences on STOP trials could indicate that compensation was effective to some degree (at the expense of higher error rates). Decreased frontal delta and theta band power was observed in high impulsivity individuals, suggesting a possible deficit in frontal pathways involved in motor suppression, however, unexpectedly, increased delta and theta band power in central and posterior sensors was also observed, which could be indicative of an increased effort to compensate for frontal deficits. Individuals scoring highly also showed decreased alpha power in frontal sensors, suggesting decreased inhibitory processing, along with reduced alpha suppression in posterior regions, reflecting reduced cue processing. These results provide evidence for how personality traits, such as impulsivity, relate to differences in the neural correlates of response inhibition.
Stop signal
Magnetoencephalography
Response inhibition
Subclinical infection
Cite
Citations (0)
Stop signal
Response inhibition
Inhibitory control
Stimulus (psychology)
Anticipation (artificial intelligence)
Control reconfiguration
Cite
Citations (0)
Response inhibition
Cite
Citations (115)
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)
Literature on impulsivity regularly claims inhibitory control deficits underlie impulsive behavior. The current study investigated whether taxing inhibitory control will increase reflection (decision making under conditions of uncertainty), temporal (delay of gratification), and motor impulsivity (behavioral disinhibition). Inhibitory control was challenged, via a random letter generation task presented during responding to three impulsivity measures: the Information Sampling Task (IST), Single Key Impulsivity Paradigm, and the Stop Signal Task (SST). Participants (n = 33) were assigned to the inhibitory control challenging (experimental) condition, or to a control condition in which inhibitory control was not challenged. The SST was affected by the inhibitory control challenge: participants in the experimental condition displayed increased motor impulsivity, evidenced in longer stop signal reaction times (SSRTs) compared to the control group. The manipulation did not affect reflection- or temporal- impulsivity measures. These data support the suggestion that the mechanisms underlying the motor subtype of impulsivity are dissociable from the temporal and reflection subtypes, and that engagement of inhibitory control is not necessary to prevent impulsive decision making.
Disinhibition
Stop signal
Inhibitory control
Delay of gratification
Cite
Citations (32)
Stop signal
Response inhibition
Inhibitory control
Trait
Cite
Citations (49)
The purpose of this study was to identify the effects of delayed response on inhibitory control in low- and high-impulsivity adolescents in the presence of an emotional context. Participants performed a Go/No-Go task in 4 conditions: a control context with and without delayed response, and a pleasant context with and without delayed response. The amplitudes and latencies of the N2 and P3 components were evaluated. The delay increased the number of correct inhibitions and omissions but decreased the number of correct responses and N2 and P3 amplitudes during inhibition. The high-impulsivity adolescents showed larger amplitudes in P3NoGo but shorter N2 latencies during the NoGo trials, and the opposite during the Go trials, as they required more processing time than the low-impulsivity adolescents to restart their motor responses. In conclusion, the delayed response did improve inhibitory control and, the beneficial effects of the delay were less pronounced in the high-impulsivity adolescents when the distraction of the pleasant stimuli was present.
Response inhibition
Inhibitory control
Cite
Citations (3)
Stop signal
Inhibitory control
Response inhibition
Dieting
Neuromodulation
Cite
Citations (190)
Inhibitory control
Response inhibition
Cite
Citations (82)