Inhibitory control describes the suppression of goal-irrelevant stimuli and behavioral responses. Current developmental taxonomies distinguish between Response Inhibition – the ability to suppress a prepotent motor response, and Attentional Inhibition – the ability to resist interference from distracting stimuli. Response Inhibition and Attentional Inhibition have exhibited moderately strong positive correlations in previous studies, suggesting they are closely related cognitive abilities. These results may reflect the use of cognitive tasks combining Stimulus–Stimulus- and Stimulus–Response-conflict as indicators of both constructs, which may have conflated their empirical association. Additionally, previous statistical modeling studies have not controlled for individual differences in Working Memory Capacity, which may account for some of the empirical overlap between Response Inhibition and Attentional Inhibition. The aim of the current study was to test a hierarchical model of inhibitory control that specifies Working Memory Capacity as a higher-order cognitive construct. Response Inhibition and Attentional Inhibition were conceptualized as lower-order cognitive mechanisms that should be empirically independent constructs apart from their shared reliance on Working Memory Capacity for active maintenance of goal-relevant representations. Measures of performance on modified stimulus–response compatibility tasks, complex memory span, and non-selective stopping tasks were obtained from 136 preadolescent children (M = 11 years, 10 months, SD = 8 months). Consistent with hypotheses, results from Structural Equation Modeling demonstrated that the Response Inhibition and Attentional Inhibition factors were empirically independent constructs that exhibited partial statistical dependence on the Working Memory Capacity factor. These findings have important implications for current theories and models of inhibitory control during development.

Brain network hubs are both highly connected and highly inter-connected, forming a critical communication backbone for coherent neural dynamics. The mechanisms driving this organization are poorly understood. Using diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in twins, we identify a major role for genes, showing that they preferentially influence connectivity strength between network hubs of the human connectome. Using transcriptomic atlas data, we show that connected hubs demonstrate tight coupling of transcriptional activity related to metabolic and cytoarchitectonic similarity. Finally, comparing over thirteen generative models of network growth, we show that purely stochastic processes cannot explain the precise wiring patterns of hubs, and that model performance can be improved by incorporating genetic constraints. Our findings indicate that genes play a strong and preferential role in shaping the functionally valuable, metabolically costly connections between connectome hubs.

ObjectiveImpulsivity and compulsivity have been implicated as important transdiagnostic dimensional phenotypes with potential relevance to addiction. We aimed to develop a model that conceptualizes these constructs as overlapping dimensional phenotypes and test whether different components of this model explain the co-occurrence of addictive and related behaviors.MethodsA large sample of adults (N = 487) was recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk and completed self-report questionnaires measuring impulsivity, intolerance of uncertainty, obsessive beliefs, and the severity of 6 addictive and related behaviors. Hierarchical clustering was used to organize addictive behaviors into homogenous groups reflecting their co-occurrence. Structural equation modeling was used to evaluate fit of the hypothesized bifactor model of impulsivity and compulsivity and determine the proportion of variance explained in the co-occurrence of addictive and related behaviors by each component of the model.ResultsAddictive and related behaviors clustered into 2 distinct groups: Impulse-Control Problems, consisting of harmful alcohol use, pathological gambling, and compulsive buying, and Obsessive-Compulsive-Related Problems, consisting of obsessive-compulsive symptoms, binge eating, and internet addiction. The hypothesized bifactor model of impulsivity and compulsivity provided the best empirical fit, with 3 uncorrelated factors corresponding to a general Disinhibition dimension, and specific Impulsivity and Compulsivity dimensions. These dimensional phenotypes uniquely and additively explained 39.9% and 68.7% of the total variance in Impulse-Control Problems and Obsessive-Compulsive-Related Problems.ConclusionA model of impulsivity and compulsivity that represents these constructs as overlapping dimensional phenotypes has important implications for understanding addictive and related behaviors in terms of shared etiology, comorbidity, and potential transdiagnostic treatments.