OBJECTIVE: To examine the relation between self-reported impulsivity, inhibitory control, and the neural correlates of stopping performance within the normal population. METHODS: Healthy individuals scoring high and low on trait impulsivity performed an auditory stop-signal task. Stopping performance and neural correlates of stopping (i.e. N1 and stop P3) were compared between the impulsive groups as well as between participants who were slow and fast in stopping. RESULTS: As expected, N1 and stop P3 were larger for successful relative to failed stops (i.e. N1 and stop P3 effects). Participants scoring high relative to low on impulsivity showed equal stopping performance, had larger stop P3, but similar N1 effects. Slow as compared to fast stoppers had reduced stop P3, but similar N1 effects. CONCLUSIONS: Participants scoring high relative to low on impulsivity may need more effortful inhibitory control to yield equal stopping performance. Slow relative to fast stoppers may have weaker inhibition processes and abnormal error processing. In contrast to ADHD, both high impulsives as well as slow stoppers had an intact N1 effect. SIGNIFICANCE: Subjective impulsivity and slow stopping in healthy individuals cannot be generalized to ADHD.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the relation between self-reported impulsivity, inhibitory control, and the neural correlates of stopping performance within the normal population. METHODS: Healthy individuals scoring high and low on trait impulsivity performed an auditory stop-signal task. Stopping performance and neural correlates of stopping (i.e. N1 and stop P3) were compared between the impulsive groups as well as between participants who were slow and fast in stopping. RESULTS: As expected, N1 and stop P3 were larger for successful relative to failed stops (i.e. N1 and stop P3 effects). Participants scoring high relative to low on impulsivity showed equal stopping performance, had larger stop P3, but similar N1 effects. Slow as compared to fast stoppers had reduced stop P3, but similar N1 effects. CONCLUSIONS:Participants scoring high relative to low on impulsivity may need more effortful inhibitory control to yield equal stopping performance. Slow relative to fast stoppers may have weaker inhibition processes and abnormal error processing. In contrast to ADHD, both high impulsives as well as slow stoppers had an intact N1 effect. SIGNIFICANCE: Subjective impulsivity and slow stopping in healthy individuals cannot be generalized to ADHD.
Authors: Alberto J González-Villar; F Mauricio Bonilla; María T Carrillo-de-la-Peña Journal: Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 3.282
Authors: H N Alexander Logemann; Koen B E Böcker; Peter K H Deschamps; Peter N van Harten; Jeroen Koning; Chantal Kemner; Zsófia Logemann-Molnár; J Leon Kenemans Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2016-10-17 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Aral Ahmadi; Godfrey D Pearlson; Shashwath A Meda; Alecia Dager; Marc N Potenza; Rivkah Rosen; Carol S Austad; Sarah A Raskin; Carolyn R Fallahi; Howard Tennen; Rebecca M Wood; Michael C Stevens Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2013-05-14 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Martin Ruchsow; Georg Groen; Markus Kiefer; Leopold Hermle; Manfred Spitzer; Michael Falkenstein Journal: J Neural Transm (Vienna) Date: 2008-03-27 Impact factor: 3.575