What Do We Really Know about Cognitive Inhibition? Task Demands and Inhibitory Effects across a Range of Memory and Behavioural Tasks

Abstract

Our study explores inhibitory control across a range of widely recognised memory and behavioural tasks. Eighty-seven never-depressed participants completed a series of tasks designed to measure inhibitory control in memory and behaviour. Specifically, a variant of the selective retrieval-practice and the Think/No-Think tasks were employed as measures of memory inhibition. The Stroop-Colour Naming and the Go/No-Go tasks were used as measures of behavioural inhibition. Participants completed all 4 tasks. Task presentation order was counterbalanced across 3 separate testing sessions for each participant. Standard inhibitory forgetting effects emerged on both memory tasks but the extent of forgetting across these tasks was not correlated. Furthermore, there was no relationship between memory inhibition tasks and either of the main behavioural inhibition measures. At a time when cognitive inhibition continues to gain acceptance as an explanatory mechanism, our study raises fundamental questions about what we actually know about inhibition and how it is affected by the processing demands of particular inhibitory tasks.

Examining the impact of thought substitution on intentional forgetting in induced and naturally occurring dysphoria

“…It is important to mention that non-dysphoric participants also failed to show a forgetting effect in the unaided suppression condition. This is contrary to previous research which has demonstrated successful a successful suppression-induced forgetting effect (Anderson and Green, 2001;Joormann et al, 2009;Noreen and MacLeod, 2015). Our findings are, however, consistent with a growing body research that has failed to demonstrate below-baseline forgetting using the TNT task (Bulevich, Roediger, Balota and Butler, 2006;Nørby, Lange and Larsen, 2010;Hertel and Gerstle, 2003).…”

Effects of Physical-Cognitive Dual Task Training on Executive Function and Gait Performance in Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial

“…The inhibitory deficit hypothesis of aging suggests that many age-related cognitive and social deficits depend on poor inhibitory control [42, 43]. Although this hypothesis and the underlying construct validity of inhibition in older adults are still issues of debate [44, 45], our results suggest that at least the ability to inhibit mental routines worsens in older adults, unless its deterioration is actively counteracted by designed, physical-cognitive DT training. This finding extends and further specifies the notion that physical activity training has the potential to induce cognitive plasticity in older adulthood [11], thus preserving the efficiency of supervisory brain systems in which inhibition is involved [46].…”

“…While aerobic exercise is the most acknowledged form of exercise to reap cognitive benefits through cardiovascular and neurotrophic mechanisms inducing changes in brain health and activation, more recently, other types of exercise besides the cardiovascular one have attracted the attention of exercise and cognition researchers [10]. Muscular resistance training of yearly [45] or even monthly duration [50] seems to improve inhibition by enhancing functional plasticity of the cortex associated with inhibition processes [51]. This was observed, for example, with women aged 65 to 75 years by means of high intensity resistance training, even only once a week, of major muscle groups (arms flexions and extensions, seated row, upper limbs pull downs, leg press, legs flexions, and raises on ball of the foot), paralleled by specific strategies to promote participants' engagement [52].…”

Dissociations of cognitive inhibition, response inhibition, and emotional interference: Voxelwise ALE meta‐analyses of fMRI studies

“…Noreen and MacLeod () showed no commonalities or correlations between tasks such as Stroop, think/no‐think, go/no‐go, and memory retrieval tasks, suggesting that these paradigms primarily assess different aspects of inhibitory processes and that there is more than one mechanism underlying behavioral inhibition (Noreen and MacLeod, ). Stahl et al () used a multi‐component modeling approach and suggested separability of cognitive inhibition (termed “stimulus interference” in their study) from response interference, which tend to be undifferentiated in existing studies (Noreen and MacLeod, ). Stahl et al () also suggested that the control of response‐related interference itself is not a unitary construct.…”