Limits...
The effects of impulsivity and proactive inhibition on reactive inhibition and the go process: insights from vocal and manual stop signal tasks.

Castro-Meneses LJ, Johnson BW, Sowman PF - Front Hum Neurosci (2015)

Bottom Line: Our aim was to evaluate the effect stop probability would have on reactive and proactive inhibition.We tested 44 subjects and found that for the high compared to low probability stop signal condition, more proactive inhibition was evident and this was correlated with a reduction in the stop signal reaction time (SSRT).We found that reactive inhibition had a positive relationship with dysfunctional but not functional impulsivity in both vocal and manual domains of responding.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Cognitive Science, Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Macquarie University North Ryde, NSW, Australia ; Department of Cognitive Science, Perception in Action Research Centre, Macquarie University North Ryde, NSW, Australia.

ABSTRACT
This study measured proactive and reactive response inhibition and their relationships with self-reported impulsivity. We examined the domains of both vocal and manual responding using a stop signal task (SST) with two stop probabilities: high and low probability stop (1/3 and 1/6 stops respectively). Our aim was to evaluate the effect stop probability would have on reactive and proactive inhibition. We tested 44 subjects and found that for the high compared to low probability stop signal condition, more proactive inhibition was evident and this was correlated with a reduction in the stop signal reaction time (SSRT). We found that reactive inhibition had a positive relationship with dysfunctional but not functional impulsivity in both vocal and manual domains of responding. These findings support the hypothesis that proactive inhibition may pre-activate the network for reactive inhibition.

No MeSH data available.


Correlations between proactive and reactive inhibition across response modalities (manual and vocal) and stop probabilities: high and low [2/3 and 1/3 stop trials following the uncertain go]. (A) Correlation between proactive inhibition and SSRT in the high probability stop condition for manual responses. (B) Correlation between proactive inhibition and SSRT in the low probability stop condition for manual responses. (C) Correlation between proactive inhibition and SSRT in the high probability stop condition for vocal responses. (D) Correlation between proactive inhibition and SSRT in the low probability stop condition for vocal responses. Because our alternative hypothesis was in one direction, all Pearson's correlations tested significance with a 1-tailed test.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4594014&req=5

Figure 3: Correlations between proactive and reactive inhibition across response modalities (manual and vocal) and stop probabilities: high and low [2/3 and 1/3 stop trials following the uncertain go]. (A) Correlation between proactive inhibition and SSRT in the high probability stop condition for manual responses. (B) Correlation between proactive inhibition and SSRT in the low probability stop condition for manual responses. (C) Correlation between proactive inhibition and SSRT in the high probability stop condition for vocal responses. (D) Correlation between proactive inhibition and SSRT in the low probability stop condition for vocal responses. Because our alternative hypothesis was in one direction, all Pearson's correlations tested significance with a 1-tailed test.

Mentions: We carried out four correlation analyses between reactive (measured by the SSRT) and proactive inhibition across both response modalities and stop probabilities. The results showed there were moderate negative, statistically significant relationships between proactive-High-probability-stop and SSRT-High-probability-stop in both response modalities: vocal [r(42) = −0.35, p < 0.01] and manual [r(42) = −0.27, p < 0.05]. These relationships revealed that more advanced preparation for stopping in the high probability stop condition was related to faster reactive stopping. See Appendix 2 in Supplementary Material for the non-significant correlations in the low probability stop conditions. Figure 3 depicts the correlation between the SSRT and proactive inhibition.


The effects of impulsivity and proactive inhibition on reactive inhibition and the go process: insights from vocal and manual stop signal tasks.

Castro-Meneses LJ, Johnson BW, Sowman PF - Front Hum Neurosci (2015)

Correlations between proactive and reactive inhibition across response modalities (manual and vocal) and stop probabilities: high and low [2/3 and 1/3 stop trials following the uncertain go]. (A) Correlation between proactive inhibition and SSRT in the high probability stop condition for manual responses. (B) Correlation between proactive inhibition and SSRT in the low probability stop condition for manual responses. (C) Correlation between proactive inhibition and SSRT in the high probability stop condition for vocal responses. (D) Correlation between proactive inhibition and SSRT in the low probability stop condition for vocal responses. Because our alternative hypothesis was in one direction, all Pearson's correlations tested significance with a 1-tailed test.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4594014&req=5

Figure 3: Correlations between proactive and reactive inhibition across response modalities (manual and vocal) and stop probabilities: high and low [2/3 and 1/3 stop trials following the uncertain go]. (A) Correlation between proactive inhibition and SSRT in the high probability stop condition for manual responses. (B) Correlation between proactive inhibition and SSRT in the low probability stop condition for manual responses. (C) Correlation between proactive inhibition and SSRT in the high probability stop condition for vocal responses. (D) Correlation between proactive inhibition and SSRT in the low probability stop condition for vocal responses. Because our alternative hypothesis was in one direction, all Pearson's correlations tested significance with a 1-tailed test.
Mentions: We carried out four correlation analyses between reactive (measured by the SSRT) and proactive inhibition across both response modalities and stop probabilities. The results showed there were moderate negative, statistically significant relationships between proactive-High-probability-stop and SSRT-High-probability-stop in both response modalities: vocal [r(42) = −0.35, p < 0.01] and manual [r(42) = −0.27, p < 0.05]. These relationships revealed that more advanced preparation for stopping in the high probability stop condition was related to faster reactive stopping. See Appendix 2 in Supplementary Material for the non-significant correlations in the low probability stop conditions. Figure 3 depicts the correlation between the SSRT and proactive inhibition.

Bottom Line: Our aim was to evaluate the effect stop probability would have on reactive and proactive inhibition.We tested 44 subjects and found that for the high compared to low probability stop signal condition, more proactive inhibition was evident and this was correlated with a reduction in the stop signal reaction time (SSRT).We found that reactive inhibition had a positive relationship with dysfunctional but not functional impulsivity in both vocal and manual domains of responding.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Cognitive Science, Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Macquarie University North Ryde, NSW, Australia ; Department of Cognitive Science, Perception in Action Research Centre, Macquarie University North Ryde, NSW, Australia.

ABSTRACT
This study measured proactive and reactive response inhibition and their relationships with self-reported impulsivity. We examined the domains of both vocal and manual responding using a stop signal task (SST) with two stop probabilities: high and low probability stop (1/3 and 1/6 stops respectively). Our aim was to evaluate the effect stop probability would have on reactive and proactive inhibition. We tested 44 subjects and found that for the high compared to low probability stop signal condition, more proactive inhibition was evident and this was correlated with a reduction in the stop signal reaction time (SSRT). We found that reactive inhibition had a positive relationship with dysfunctional but not functional impulsivity in both vocal and manual domains of responding. These findings support the hypothesis that proactive inhibition may pre-activate the network for reactive inhibition.

No MeSH data available.