Two sides of the same coin: ADHD affects reactive but not proactive inhibition in children

Suarez, Isabel; Aragón, Carlos De Los Reyes; Grandjean, Aurélie; Barceló, Ernesto; Chams, Moisés Mebarak; Lewis, Soraya; Pineda-Alhucema, Wilmar; Casini, Laurence

doi:10.1080/02643294.2022.2031944

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 100 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interestingly, the selective impairment of reactive versus proactive inhibitory control can mark the phenotype of distinct clinical conditions or even different phases of disease [ 68 ]. For example, children diagnosed with ADHD are associated with a specific impairment in reactive but not in proactive motor inhibition [ 67 ], a finding that has recently been replicated by Suarez and colleagues [ 69 ]. A comparable pattern has been reported by Mirabella et al [ 21 ] in children expressing primary motor stereotypes, showing a deficit in reactive motor inhibition, compared to typically developing children, whereas proactive control seems to be intact.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Conceptual Clarification of Proactive Inhibitory Control: A Review

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this selective review paper is to clarify potential confusion when referring to the term proactive inhibitory control. Illustrated by a concise overview of the literature, we propose defining reactive inhibition as the mechanism underlying stopping an action. On a stop trial, the stop signal initiates the stopping process that races against the ongoing action-related process that is triggered by the go signal. Whichever processes finishes first determines the behavioral outcome of the race. That is, stopping is either successful or unsuccessful in that trial. Conversely, we propose using the term proactive inhibition to explicitly indicate preparatory processes engaged to bias the outcome of the race between stopping and going. More specifically, these proactive processes include either pre-amping the reactive inhibition system (biasing the efficiency of the stopping process) or presetting the action system (biasing the efficiency of the go process). We believe that this distinction helps meaningful comparisons between various outcome measures of proactive inhibitory control that are reported in the literature and extends to experimental research paradigms other than the stop task.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Conceptual Clarification of Proactive Inhibitory Control: A Review

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One of the important aspects of the SST and the related race model is that it provides an estimate of the reactive inhibition as the time needed to stop an already planned movement Stop Signal reaction time (SSRT). The SST has been extensively employed to investigate single effector inhibition in different experimental contexts (Lavallee et al, 2014;Montanari et al, 2017;Pani et al, 2018;Andujar et al, 2022) and pathological populations (Brunamonti et al, 2011(Brunamonti et al, , 2014Olivito et al, 2017;Mancini et al, 2018;di Caprio et al, 2020;Mirabella et al, 2020;Suarez et al, 2021). However, it is still an open question if the model can be easily extended to actions requiring the coordination or interaction of different body segments (Hannah and Aron, 2021;Wadsley et al, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Restart errors reaction time of a two-step inhibition process account for the violation of the race model’s independence in multi-effector selective stop signal task

Marc

Giuffrida²,

Ramawat³

et al. 2023

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Goal-oriented actions often require the coordinated movement of two or more effectors. Sometimes multi-effector movements need to be adjusted according to a continuously changing environment, requiring stopping an effector without interrupting the movement of the others. This form of control has been investigated by the selective Stop Signal Task (SST), requiring the inhibition of an effector of a multicomponent action. This form of selective inhibition has been hypothesized to act through a two-step process, where a temporary global inhibition deactivating all the ongoing motor responses is followed by a restarting process that reactivates only the moving effector. When this form of inhibition takes place, the reaction time (RT) of the moving effector pays the cost of the previous global inhibition. However, it is poorly investigated if and how this cost delays the RT of the effector that was required to be stopped but was erroneously moved (Stop Error trials). Here we measure the Stop Error RT in a group of participants instructed to simultaneously rotate the wrist and lift the foot when a Go Signal occurred, and interrupt both movements (non-selective Stop version) or only one of them (selective Stop version) when a Stop Signal was presented. We presented this task in two experimental conditions to evaluate how different contexts can influence a possible proactive inhibition on the RT of the moving effector in the selective Stop versions. In one context, we provided the foreknowledge of the effector to be inhibited by presenting the same selective or non-selective Stop versions in the same block of trials. In a different context, while providing no foreknowledge of the effector(s) to be stopped, the selective and non-selective Stop versions were intermingled, and the information on the effector to be stopped was delivered at the time of the Stop Signal presentation. We detected a cost in both Correct and Error selective Stop RTs that was influenced by the different task conditions. Results are discussed within the framework of the race model related to the SST, and its relationship with a restart model developed for selective versions of this paradigm.

show abstract

“…Deficits in response inhibition control are related to many diseases, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) ( Smith et al, 2004 ; van Hulst et al, 2018 ; Suarez et al, 2021 ), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) ( Shucard et al, 2008 ), depression ( Kaiser et al, 2003 ), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and Tourette syndrome (TS) ( Mancini et al, 2018 ), primary motor stereotypies ( Mirabella et al, 2020 ), autism spectrum disorders (ASD) ( Schmitt et al, 2018 ), and Parkinson’s disease (PD) ( Bokura et al, 2005 ; Mirabella et al, 2017 ; di Caprio et al, 2020 ). The amplitudes of NoGo-N2 and NoGo-P3 were also significantly smaller in the PD group than in the control group ( Bokura et al, 2005 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

High-frequency rTMS over the left DLPFC improves the response inhibition control of young healthy participants: an ERP combined 1H-MRS study

Pang

Wang

et al. 2023

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionUnlike the effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in treating neuropsychiatric diseases, little is known about how personal factors might account for the disparity of results from studies of cognition and rTMS. In this study, we investigated the effects of high-frequency rTMS on response inhibition control and explored the time course changes in cognitive processing and brain metabolic mechanisms after rTMS using event-related potentials (ERPs) and magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H-MRS).MethodsParticipants were all right-handed and were naive to rTMS and the Go/NoGo task. Twenty-five healthy young participants underwent one 10 Hz rTMS session per day in which stimulation was applied over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), and a homogeneous participant group of 25 individuals received a sham rTMS treatment for 1 week. A Go/NoGo task was performed, an electroencephalogram (EEG) was recorded, and 1H-MRS was performed.ResultsThe results revealed that there was a strong trend of decreasing commission errors of NoGo stimuli by high frequency rTMS over the left DLPFC, whereas there was no significant difference between before and after rTMS treatment with respect to these parameters in the sham rTMS group. High-frequency rTMS significantly increased the amplitude of NoGo-N2 but not Go-N2, Go-P3, or NoGo-P3. The myo-inositol /creatine complex (MI/Cr) ratio, indexing cerebral metabolism, in the left DLPFC was decreased in the rTMS treated group.DiscussionThis observation supports the view that high-frequency rTMS over the left DLPFC has the strong tendency of reducing commission errors behaviorally, increase the amplitude of NoGo-N2 and improve the response inhibition control of healthy young participants. The results are consistent with the excitatory properties of high frequency rTMS. We suggest that the increase in the NoGo-N2 amplitude may be related to the increased excitability of the DLPFC-anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) neural loop. Metabolic changes in the DLPFC may be a possible mechanism for the improvement of the response inhibition control of rTMS.

show abstract

Two sides of the same coin: ADHD affects reactive but not proactive inhibition in children

Cited by 8 publications

References 100 publications

Towards Conceptual Clarification of Proactive Inhibitory Control: A Review

Towards Conceptual Clarification of Proactive Inhibitory Control: A Review

Restart errors reaction time of a two-step inhibition process account for the violation of the race model’s independence in multi-effector selective stop signal task

High-frequency rTMS over the left DLPFC improves the response inhibition control of young healthy participants: an ERP combined 1H-MRS study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About