RATIONALE: Although there is considerable interest in how either executive function (EF) or impulsivity relate to addiction, there is little apparent overlap between these research areas. OBJECTIVES: The present paper aims to determine if components of these two constructs are conceptual antipodes--widely separated on a shared continuum. METHODS: EFs and impulsivities were compared and contrasted. Specifically, the definitions of the components of EF and impulsivity, the methods used to measure the various components, the populations of drug users that show deficits in these components, and the neural substrates of these components were compared and contrasted. RESULTS: Each component of impulsivity had an antipode in EF. EF, however, covered a wider range of phenomena, including compulsivity. CONCLUSIONS: Impulsivity functions as an antipode of certain components of EF. Recognition of the relationship between EF and impulsivity may inform the scientific inquiry of behavioral problems such as addiction. Other theoretical implications are discussed.
RATIONALE: Although there is considerable interest in how either executive function (EF) or impulsivity relate to addiction, there is little apparent overlap between these research areas. OBJECTIVES: The present paper aims to determine if components of these two constructs are conceptual antipodes--widely separated on a shared continuum. METHODS: EFs and impulsivities were compared and contrasted. Specifically, the definitions of the components of EF and impulsivity, the methods used to measure the various components, the populations of drug users that show deficits in these components, and the neural substrates of these components were compared and contrasted. RESULTS: Each component of impulsivity had an antipode in EF. EF, however, covered a wider range of phenomena, including compulsivity. CONCLUSIONS: Impulsivity functions as an antipode of certain components of EF. Recognition of the relationship between EF and impulsivity may inform the scientific inquiry of behavioral problems such as addiction. Other theoretical implications are discussed.
Authors: Patrick D Worhunsky; Alecia D Dager; Shashwath A Meda; Sabin Khadka; Michael C Stevens; Carol S Austad; Sarah A Raskin; Howard Tennen; Rebecca M Wood; Carolyn R Fallahi; Marc N Potenza; Godfrey D Pearlson Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2015-10-30 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Adrienne J Heinz; David L Pennington; Nicole Cohen; Brandi Schmeling; Brooke A Lasher; Emily Schrodek; Steven L Batki Journal: Mil Med Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 1.437
Authors: Katherine S F Damme; Nicholas J Kelley; Meghan E Quinn; James E Glazer; Iris Ka-Yi Chat; Katherine S Young; Robin Nusslock; Richard Zinbarg; Susan Bookheimer; Michelle G Craske Journal: Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 3.282
Authors: A Ross Otto; Candace M Raio; Alice Chiang; Elizabeth A Phelps; Nathaniel D Daw Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2013-12-09 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: David P Jarmolowicz; J Bradley C Cherry; Derek D Reed; Jared M Bruce; John M Crespi; Jayson L Lusk; Amanda S Bruce Journal: Appetite Date: 2014-03-17 Impact factor: 3.868
Authors: David P Jarmolowicz; Reid D Landes; Darren R Christensen; Bryan A Jones; Lisa Jackson; Richard Yi; Warren K Bickel Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2014-05-09 Impact factor: 3.913