Restraint and Cancellation: Multiple Inhibition Deficits in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

Abstract

We used variations of the stop signal task to study two components of motor response inhibition-the ability to withhold a strong response tendency (restraint) and the ability to cancel an ongoing action (cancellation)-in children with a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and in non-ADHD controls of similar age (ages 7-14 years). The goal was to determine if restraint and cancellation were related and if both were deficient in ADHD. The stop signal task involved a choice reaction time task (go task) which required a rapid response. The demand for inhibitory control was invoked through the presentation of a stop signal on a subset of go trials which required that the ongoing response be suspended. The stop signal was presented either concurrently with the go signal (restraint version) or after a variable delay (cancellation version). In Study 1, we compared ADHD and control children on the cancellation version of the stop task; in Study 2, we compared ADHD and controls on the restraint version. In Study 3, a subset of ADHD and control participants completed both tasks so that we could examine convergence of these dimensions of inhibition. Compared to control participants, ADHD participants showed a deficit both in the ability to cancel and to restrain a speeded motor response. Performance on the restraint version was significantly correlated with performance on the cancellation version in controls, but not in ADHD participants. We conclude that ADHD is associated with deficits in both restraint and cancellation subcomponents of inhibition.

How to withhold or replace a prepotent response: An analysis of the underlying control processes and their temporal dynamics

“…Finally, Schachar et al (2007) found a dissociation between nogo performance and stop performance in children with ADHD but not in healthy control children.…”

The neuropsychopharmacology of action inhibition: cross-species translation of the stop-signal and go/no-go tasks

“…cocaine, amphetamine, methamphetamine), and is also seen as a useful behavioural marker of genetic risk factors (Aron 2007;Aron and Poldrack 2005;Bellgrove et al 2006;Durston et al 2008;Fillmore et al , 2006Gauggel et al 2004;Monterosso et al 2005;Nigg et al 2004;Oosterlaan et al 1998;Penades et al 2007;Rubia et al 1998Rubia et al , 2005bRubia et al , 2007Schachar et al 2007;Schachar et al 1995;van den Wildenberg et al 2006). Indeed, impaired action inhibition is often considered as the core deficit in ADHD (e.g.…”

“…Recently, Schachar et al (2007) defined two forms of action inhibition: 'action restraint' and 'action cancellation'. With both forms of inhibition acting on pre-planned motor actions, action restraint describes the inhibition of the motor response before that response has been started.…”

“…lights) as their go and no-go signals, potentially increasing the difficulty of the decision-making component of this task. Schachar et al (2007) noted that because the critical difference between stop-signal and go/no-go tasks is often the temporal location of the inhibitory signal within the main motor task (Fig. 1), it would be possible to devise a test procedure in which both action-restraint and actioncancellation components are presented within-session.…”

“…Recently, within one basic task framework, the SSRT has been measured alongside stop-trial commission errors (measured under a condition when the go and stop signals were presented together, the no-delay or zero-delay condition) (e.g. Eagle and Robbins 2003a;Eagle et al 2007;Rubia et al 2001;Schachar et al 2007). Examining action restraint and action cancellation in this way eliminates potentially confounding effects of comparing between different tasks and may provide a more practical framework for further analysing these forms of inhibition.…”