A neural basis for the development of inhibitory control

Abstract

The present study explores the neural basis of the development of inhibitory control by combining functional neuroimaging with a parametric manipulation of a go-nogo paradigm. We demonstrate how the maturation of ventral fronto-striatal circuitry underlies the development of this ability. We used event-related fMRI to examine the effect of interference on neural processes involved in inhibitory control in children and adults. Nogo trials were preceded by either 1, 3 or 5 go trials and then compared to one another. Both children and adults showed an increase in errors with increasing interference. Successful response inhibition was associated with stronger activation of prefrontal and parietal regions for children than for adults. In adults, activation in ventral prefrontal regions increased with increasing interference from go trials. Unlike adults, the circuitry appeared to be maximally activated in children when suppressing a behavioral response regardless of the number of preceding responses. Furthermore, activation in ventral fronto-striatal regions correlated with both age and performance. These findings suggest that immature cognition is more susceptible to interference and this is paralleled by maturational differences in underlying fronto-striatal circuitry.

Neural Correlates of Response Inhibition in Early Childhood: Evidence From a Go/No-Go Task

“…There were a total of 200 (Fast) or 160 (Slow) test trials 2 with 75% Go trials (Fast: 150 trials, Slow: 120 trials) and 25% No-go trials (Fast: 50 trials, Slow: 40 trials). Following the prototypical design of the GNG task (Cragg & Nation, 2008; Durston et al, 2002; Lahat et al, 2010), Go trials were probabilistically dominant to increase children’s bias to respond, thereby maximizing response inhibition requirements on No-go trials. Children in the Fast condition completed a greater number of trials to ensure there was sufficient EEG data on correct trials to permit ERP analyses, as we expected children to make more errors in the speeded condition.…”

“…The goal of the present study was to examine response inhibition and its neural correlates in young children, while manipulating task demands expected to affect inhibitory load. Numerous factors have been found to increase inhibitory load—for example, working memory load (Wijeakumar et al, 2015), level of interference (Ciesielski, Harris, & Cofer, 2004), and preceding context (Durston et al, 2002). In this study, we choose to focus on one factor, time pressure (Cragg & Nation, 2008; Jodo & Kayama, 1992; Simpson & Riggs, 2006).…”

“…Both studies used variants of the Go/No-go (GNG) paradigm, commonly used to assess response inhibition in children (e.g., Durston et al, 2002; Wiebe et al, 2012). In a typical GNG task, participants respond to a frequently occurring stimulus type (Go trials), and withhold responding to a less frequently occurring stimulus type (No-go trials).…”

“…Most of these studies have found ERPs modulated by response inhibition demands were more evident at posterior electrode sites (Brydges, Anderson, Reid, & Fox, 2013; Ciesielski et al, 2004; Durston et al, 2002; Jonkman et al, 2007). Jonkman, Lansbergen, and Stauder (2003) directly compared 9-year-old children and adults, and found that the No-go P3 was maximal at posterior electrode sites in children, but frontally maximal in adults.…”

Fitting objects into holes: On the development of spatial cognition skills.

“…At 36 months they are able to self-regulate, a flexibility for controlling processes that meets changing situational demands. The ability to exclude irrelevant information develops gradually (Durston, Thomas et al 2002). A choice experiment demands that you go through all available information before you begin the task.…”