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 vocal and manual responses for both go RT types (certain and uncertain) and both inhibition types (proactive and reactive). (A) Correlations for the high probability stop [2/3 stop trials followed the uncertain go]. (B) Correlations for the low probability stop [1/3 stop trials followed the uncertain go].
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Figure 5: Correlations between vocal and manual responses for both go RT types (certain and uncertain) and both inhibition types (proactive and reactive). (A) Correlations for the high probability stop [2/3 stop trials followed the uncertain go]. (B) Correlations for the low probability stop [1/3 stop trials followed the uncertain go].

Mentions: We conducted correlations between manual and vocal responses across both go RT types (certain go and uncertain go) and both inhibition types (reactive and proactive). The results revealed strong, positive, statistically significant relationships between manual and vocal responses in: certain go RT-High probability stop [r(42) = 0.79, p < 0.0001]; uncertain go RT-High probability stop [r(42) = 0.70, p < 0.0001]; proactive-High probability stop [r(42) = 0.75, p < 0.0001]; certain go RT-Low probability stop [r(42) = 0.62, p < 0.0001]; uncertain go RT-Low probability stop [r(42) = 0.60, p < 0.0001]; proactive-Low probability stop [r(42) = 0.68, p < 0.0001] and SSRT-Low probability stop [r(42) = 0.58, p < 0.0001]. These relationships suggested that when one index in vocal responses increased, the counterpart index in manual responses increased too. There was only the correlation of SSRT-High probability stop between responsemodalities that was not statistically significant [r(42) = 0.14, p = 0.19]. These results are depicted in Figure 5. Interestingly, the SSRT-High probability stop was the only index that did not correlate with dysfunctional impulsivity.


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 vocal and manual responses for both go RT types (certain and uncertain) and both inhibition types (proactive and reactive). (A) Correlations for the high probability stop [2/3 stop trials followed the uncertain go]. (B) Correlations for the low probability stop [1/3 stop trials followed the uncertain go].
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Figure 5: Correlations between vocal and manual responses for both go RT types (certain and uncertain) and both inhibition types (proactive and reactive). (A) Correlations for the high probability stop [2/3 stop trials followed the uncertain go]. (B) Correlations for the low probability stop [1/3 stop trials followed the uncertain go].
Mentions: We conducted correlations between manual and vocal responses across both go RT types (certain go and uncertain go) and both inhibition types (reactive and proactive). The results revealed strong, positive, statistically significant relationships between manual and vocal responses in: certain go RT-High probability stop [r(42) = 0.79, p < 0.0001]; uncertain go RT-High probability stop [r(42) = 0.70, p < 0.0001]; proactive-High probability stop [r(42) = 0.75, p < 0.0001]; certain go RT-Low probability stop [r(42) = 0.62, p < 0.0001]; uncertain go RT-Low probability stop [r(42) = 0.60, p < 0.0001]; proactive-Low probability stop [r(42) = 0.68, p < 0.0001] and SSRT-Low probability stop [r(42) = 0.58, p < 0.0001]. These relationships suggested that when one index in vocal responses increased, the counterpart index in manual responses increased too. There was only the correlation of SSRT-High probability stop between responsemodalities that was not statistically significant [r(42) = 0.14, p = 0.19]. These results are depicted in Figure 5. Interestingly, the SSRT-High probability stop was the only index that did not correlate with dysfunctional impulsivity.

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.