2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2017.07.064
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Go/No-Go task performance predicts differences in compulsivity but not in impulsivity personality traits

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
0
5
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Previous research on disinhibition and externalizing symptoms in adolescents demonstrates conflicting results. That is, while some research has shown that youth with externalizing symptoms make more false alarms on Go/NoGo tasks (Schulz et al, 2004; Bezdjian et al, 2009), others have found that there is no relationship between externalizing symptoms such as impulsivity and false alarms on Go/NoGo tasks (Brown et al, 2015; Sánchez-Kuhn et al, 2017). To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the link between externalizing symptoms and behavioral disinhibition using salient peer faces in adolescents.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous research on disinhibition and externalizing symptoms in adolescents demonstrates conflicting results. That is, while some research has shown that youth with externalizing symptoms make more false alarms on Go/NoGo tasks (Schulz et al, 2004; Bezdjian et al, 2009), others have found that there is no relationship between externalizing symptoms such as impulsivity and false alarms on Go/NoGo tasks (Brown et al, 2015; Sánchez-Kuhn et al, 2017). To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the link between externalizing symptoms and behavioral disinhibition using salient peer faces in adolescents.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, usually, there are no correlations between the findings in the behavioral tasks and the questionnaires measuring impulsivity (Asahi et al, 2004 ; Claes et al, 2006 ). A possible explanation for these contradictory results might be that the behavioral tasks measure the inhibitory control of a specific facet of inhibition at a single point of time, while the scales rate general behaviors across different situations (Clark et al, 2009 ; Sánchez-Kuhn et al, 2017 ). In our study, fNIRS revealed the regional brain activation (DLPFC) in the go/no-go task in the T/T group and decreased SNAP-IV scores in the T/T group post- MPH 4w treatment.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Probabilistic reversal learning task, aimed at training cognitive flexibility, where a pair of stimuli is presented on the screen, and participants must choose the stimulus with the highest probability of reward, adapting their behaviour when the reinforcement contingency is reversed after 40 trials [50].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…• N-back task, which involves working memory and has three levels of difficulty (0-back, 1-back and 2-back), where the participant is asked to match the current stimulus with the one presented N earlier [48]. • Go/no-go task, designed to train response inhibition, where the participant has to press the space bar whenever the Go stimulus appears (75%) and avoid pressing it in case of the No-go stimulus (25%) [49]. • Probabilistic reversal learning task, aimed at training cognitive flexibility, where a pair of stimuli is presented on the screen, and participants must choose the stimulus with the highest probability of reward, adapting their behaviour when the reinforcement contingency is reversed after 40 trials [50].…”
Section: Cognitive Trainingmentioning
confidence: 99%