Literature DB >> 24408449

Dissociable yet tied inhibitory processes: the structure of inhibitory control.

George A Michael1, Raphaël Mizzi, Cyril Couffe, Germán Gálvez-García.   

Abstract

Cognitive and neural models have proposed the existence of a single inhibitory process that regulates behavior and depends on the right frontal operculum (rFO). The aim of this study was to make a contribution to the ongoing debate as to whether inhibition is a single process or is composed of multiple, independent processes. Here, within a single paradigm, we assessed the links between two inhibitory phenomena-namely, resistance to involuntary visual capture by abrupt onsets and resolving of spatial stimulus-response conflict. We did so by conducting three experiments, two involving healthy volunteers (Exps. 1 and 3), and one with the help of a well-documented patient, R.J., with selectively weakened inhibition following a lesion of the rFO. The results suggest that resistance to capture and stimulus-response conflict are independent, because (a) additive effects were found (Exps. 1 and 3), (b) capture did not correlate with compatibility effects (Exp. 1), (c) dual tasking affected the two phenomena differently (Exp. 3), and (d) a dissociation was found between the two in patient R.J. (Exp. 2). However, the results also show that these two phenomena may share some processing components, given that (a) both were affected in patient R.J., but to different degrees (Exp. 2), and (b) increasing the difficulty of dual tasking produced an increasingly negative correlation between capture and compatibility (Exp. 3), which suggests that when resources are withdrawn from the control of the former, they are used to control the latter.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24408449     DOI: 10.3758/s13415-013-0242-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci        ISSN: 1530-7026            Impact factor:   3.526


  70 in total

1.  The thalamus interrupts top-down attentional control for permitting exploratory shiftings to sensory signals.

Authors:  G A Michael; M Boucart; J F Degreef; O Godefroy
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2001-07-03       Impact factor: 1.837

2.  Stop-signal inhibition disrupted by damage to right inferior frontal gyrus in humans.

Authors:  Adam R Aron; Paul C Fletcher; Ed T Bullmore; Barbara J Sahakian; Trevor W Robbins
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 24.884

Review 3.  [Frontal lobes and inhibitory function].

Authors:  Seiki Konishi
Journal:  Brain Nerve       Date:  2011-12

4.  Inhibition of return in subliminal letter priming.

Authors:  Yousri Marzouki; Jonathan Grainger; Jan Theeuwes
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  2008-06-25

5.  A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null-hypothesis significance testing.

Authors:  Michael E J Masson
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2011-09

6.  Discovering functionally independent mental processes: the principle of reversed association.

Authors:  J C Dunn; K Kirsner
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 8.934

7.  Ambient odors influence the amplitude and time course of visual distraction.

Authors:  George Andrew Michael; Lawrence Jacquot; Jean-Louis Millot; Gérard Brand
Journal:  Behav Neurosci       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 1.912

8.  The role of working memory in visual selective attention.

Authors:  J W de Fockert; G Rees; C D Frith; N Lavie
Journal:  Science       Date:  2001-03-02       Impact factor: 47.728

9.  The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory.

Authors:  R C Oldfield
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  1971-03       Impact factor: 3.139

10.  Effects of focal frontal lesions on response inhibition.

Authors:  Terence W Picton; Donald T Stuss; Michael P Alexander; Tim Shallice; Malcolm A Binns; Susan Gillingham
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2006-05-12       Impact factor: 5.357

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.