Development of response inhibition in the context of relevant versus irrelevant emotions

Abstract

The present study examined the influence of relevant and irrelevant emotions on response inhibition from childhood to early adulthood. Ninety-four participants between 6 and 25 years of age performed two go/nogo tasks with emotional faces (neutral, happy, and fearful) as stimuli. In one go/nogo task emotion formed a relevant dimension of the task and in the other go/nogo task emotion was irrelevant and participants had to respond to the color of the faces instead. A special feature of the latter task, in which emotion was irrelevant, was the inclusion of free choice trials, in which participants could freely decide between acting and inhibiting. Results showed a linear increase in response inhibition performance with increasing age both in relevant and irrelevant affective contexts. Relevant emotions had a pronounced influence on performance across age, whereas irrelevant emotions did not. Overall, participants made more false alarms on trials with fearful faces than happy faces, and happy faces were associated with better performance on go trials (higher percentage correct and faster RTs) than fearful faces. The latter effect was stronger for young children in terms of accuracy. Finally, during the free choice trials participants did not base their decisions on affective context, confirming that irrelevant emotions do not have a strong impact on inhibition. Together, these findings suggest that across development relevant affective context has a larger influence on response inhibition than irrelevant affective context. When emotions are relevant, a context of positive emotions is associated with better performance compared to a context with negative emotions, especially in young children.

Adolescents’ inhibitory control: keep it cool or lose control

“…In contrast to studies that reported a linear development of hot inhibitory control abilities (Prencipe et al., ; Schel & Crone, ; Tottenham et al., ), we found that Hot Stroop interference effects were greater in adolescents than in children and adults; that is, they followed an inverse U‐shaped developmental pattern consistent with an adolescent‐specific model of inhibitory control development (Somerville et al., ). Thus, the present study advocates in favor of the neurodevelopmental model of Casey (e.g., Casey, ), which views adolescence as a time‐window characterized by an imbalance between an immature prefrontal network and a hyperactive subcortical network (Casey et al., ; Casey & Caudle, ; Casey, Jones, & Somerville, ), over Zelazo's model (Zelazo & Müller, ).…”

Neurocognitive bases of emotion regulation development in adolescence

“…irrelevant in participants aged 6-25, and found that only task-relevant emotion had a strong effect on inhibition (Schel & Crone, 2013).…”

Differences in autonomic functions as related to induced stress between children with and without cerebral palsy while performing a virtual meal-making task

“…Both task demands and environmental stimuli, such as visual images, temperatures, sounds and smells, have an effect on the way children process incoming information (e.g., Bush, Alkon, Obradovic, Stamperdahl, & Boyce, 2011;McManis, Bradley, Berg, Cuthbert, & Lang, 2001;Sharp, van Goozen, & Goodyer, 2006;Schell & Crone, 2013;Tottenham, Hare, & Casey, 2011). Environmental stimuli including emotionally loaded stimuli, also referred to as affective stimuli, may capture and divert attention regardless of their relevance to ongoing tasks (Dolcos & McCarthy, 2006), affecting children's cognitive control processes (Tottenham et al, 2011;Schell & Crone, 2013) and eliciting a range of subjective and autonomic responses (McManis et al, 2001;Shapiro, Sgan Cohen, Parush, & Melmed, 2009;Sharp et al, 2006).…”

“…Environmental stimuli including emotionally loaded stimuli, also referred to as affective stimuli, may capture and divert attention regardless of their relevance to ongoing tasks (Dolcos & McCarthy, 2006), affecting children's cognitive control processes (Tottenham et al, 2011;Schell & Crone, 2013) and eliciting a range of subjective and autonomic responses (McManis et al, 2001;Shapiro, Sgan Cohen, Parush, & Melmed, 2009;Sharp et al, 2006). Shapiro et al (2009), for example, demonstrated the significant value of a sensory adapted environment that included special lighting effects, relaxing music, vibrations, and aromas on the comfort level of children with and without developmental disabilities undergoing dental treatment as measured via electrodermal activity.…”