Diana M Graham1, Leila Glass1, Sarah N Mattson1. 1. Center for Behavioral Teratology, Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prenatal alcohol exposure affects inhibitory control and other aspects of attention and executive function. However, the efficacy of extrinsic reinforcement on these behaviors has not been tested. METHODS: Alcohol-exposed children (AE; n = 34), children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; n = 23), and controls (CON; n = 31) completed a flanker task with 4 reward conditions (no reward, reward, reward+occasional response cost, equal probability of reward+response cost). Inhibitory control was tested in the no reward conditions using a 3(group) × 2(flanker type) ANCOVA. Response to reinforcement was tested using 3(group) × 4(reward condition) × 4(flanker type) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Response time (RT) and accuracy were tested independently. RESULTS: Groups did not differ on demographic variables. The flanker task was successful in taxing interference control, an aspect of executive attention (i.e., responses to incongruent stimuli were slower than to congruent stimuli) and the AE group demonstrated impaired executive control over the other groups. Overall, the AE group had significantly slower RTs compared to the CON and ADHD groups, which did not differ. However, reinforcement improved RT in all groups. While occasional response cost had the greatest benefit in the CON group, the type of reinforcement did not differentially affect the AE and ADHD groups. Accuracy across reward conditions did not differ by group, but was dependent on flanker type and reward condition. CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol-exposed children, but not children with ADHD, had impaired interference control in comparison with controls, supporting a differential neurobehavioral profile in these 2 groups. Both clinical groups were equally affected by introduction of reinforcement, although the type of reinforcement did not differentially affect performance as it did in the control group, suggesting that reward or response cost could be used interchangeably to result in the same benefit.
BACKGROUND: Prenatal alcohol exposure affects inhibitory control and other aspects of attention and executive function. However, the efficacy of extrinsic reinforcement on these behaviors has not been tested. METHODS:Alcohol-exposed children (AE; n = 34), children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; n = 23), and controls (CON; n = 31) completed a flanker task with 4 reward conditions (no reward, reward, reward+occasional response cost, equal probability of reward+response cost). Inhibitory control was tested in the no reward conditions using a 3(group) × 2(flanker type) ANCOVA. Response to reinforcement was tested using 3(group) × 4(reward condition) × 4(flanker type) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Response time (RT) and accuracy were tested independently. RESULTS: Groups did not differ on demographic variables. The flanker task was successful in taxing interference control, an aspect of executive attention (i.e., responses to incongruent stimuli were slower than to congruent stimuli) and the AE group demonstrated impaired executive control over the other groups. Overall, the AE group had significantly slower RTs compared to the CON and ADHD groups, which did not differ. However, reinforcement improved RT in all groups. While occasional response cost had the greatest benefit in the CON group, the type of reinforcement did not differentially affect the AE and ADHD groups. Accuracy across reward conditions did not differ by group, but was dependent on flanker type and reward condition. CONCLUSIONS:Alcohol-exposed children, but not children with ADHD, had impaired interference control in comparison with controls, supporting a differential neurobehavioral profile in these 2 groups. Both clinical groups were equally affected by introduction of reinforcement, although the type of reinforcement did not differentially affect performance as it did in the control group, suggesting that reward or response cost could be used interchangeably to result in the same benefit.
Authors: L M Jonkman; C Kemner; M N Verbaten; H Van Engeland; J L Kenemans; G Camfferman; J K Buitelaar; H S Koelega Journal: Psychophysiology Date: 1999-07 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Katherine A Johnson; Simon P Kelly; Mark A Bellgrove; Edwina Barry; Marie Cox; Michael Gill; Ian H Robertson Journal: Neuropsychologia Date: 2006-12-08 Impact factor: 3.139