BACKGROUND: Individuals with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and other externalizing psychopathologies tend to display poor behavioral performance on the go/no-go task, which is thought to reflect deficits in inhibitory control. However, clinical neuroimaging studies using this task have yielded conflicting results, raising basic questions about what the task measures and which aspects of the task relate to clinical outcomes. We used computational modeling to provide a clearer understanding of how neural activations from this task relate to the cognitive mechanisms that underlie performance and to probe the implications of these relationships for clinical research. METHODS: A total of 143 young adults (8-21 years of age) performed the go/no-go task during functional magnetic resonance imaging scanning. We used the diffusion decision model (DDM), a cognitive modeling approach, to quantify distinct neurocognitive processes that underlie go/no-go performance. We then assessed correlations between DDM parameters and brain activation from standard go/no-go contrasts and assessed relationships of DDM parameters and associated neural measures with clinical ratings. RESULTS: Right-lateralized prefrontal activations on correct inhibition trials, which are generally assumed to isolate neural processes involved in inhibition, were unrelated to DDM parameters (and other performance indices). However, responses to failed inhibitions in brain regions associated with error monitoring were strongly related to more efficient task performance and correlated with externalizing behavior and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings cast doubt on conventional interpretations of go/no-go task-related activations as reflecting the neural basis of inhibitory functioning. We instead found evidence that error-related contrasts provide clinically relevant information about neural systems involved in monitoring and optimizing the efficiency of cognitive performance.
BACKGROUND: Individuals with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and other externalizing psychopathologies tend to display poor behavioral performance on the go/no-go task, which is thought to reflect deficits in inhibitory control. However, clinical neuroimaging studies using this task have yielded conflicting results, raising basic questions about what the task measures and which aspects of the task relate to clinical outcomes. We used computational modeling to provide a clearer understanding of how neural activations from this task relate to the cognitive mechanisms that underlie performance and to probe the implications of these relationships for clinical research. METHODS: A total of 143 young adults (8-21 years of age) performed the go/no-go task during functional magnetic resonance imaging scanning. We used the diffusion decision model (DDM), a cognitive modeling approach, to quantify distinct neurocognitive processes that underlie go/no-go performance. We then assessed correlations between DDM parameters and brain activation from standard go/no-go contrasts and assessed relationships of DDM parameters and associated neural measures with clinical ratings. RESULTS: Right-lateralized prefrontal activations on correct inhibition trials, which are generally assumed to isolate neural processes involved in inhibition, were unrelated to DDM parameters (and other performance indices). However, responses to failed inhibitions in brain regions associated with error monitoring were strongly related to more efficient task performance and correlated with externalizing behavior and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings cast doubt on conventional interpretations of go/no-go task-related activations as reflecting the neural basis of inhibitory functioning. We instead found evidence that error-related contrasts provide clinically relevant information about neural systems involved in monitoring and optimizing the efficiency of cognitive performance.
Authors: Michael J Frank; Chris Gagne; Erika Nyhus; Sean Masters; Thomas V Wiecki; James F Cavanagh; David Badre Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2015-01-14 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Wolfgang Dillo; Andres Göke; Vanessa Prox-Vagedes; Gregor R Szycik; Mandy Roy; Frank Donnerstag; Hinderk M Emrich; Martin D Ohlmeier Journal: Ger Med Sci Date: 2010-04-19
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: B J Casey; R J Trainor; J L Orendi; A B Schubert; L E Nystrom; J N Giedd; F X Castellanos; J V Haxby; D C Noll; J D Cohen; S D Forman; R E Dahl; J L Rapoport Journal: J Cogn Neurosci Date: 1997-11 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Sarah Durston; Nim T Tottenham; Kathleen M Thomas; Matthew C Davidson; Inge-Marie Eigsti; Yihong Yang; Aziz M Ulug; B J Casey Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2003-05-15 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Sarah L Karalunas; Hilde M Geurts; Kerstin Konrad; Stephan Bender; Joel T Nigg Journal: J Child Psychol Psychiatry Date: 2014-03-13 Impact factor: 8.982
Authors: Gilles Dutilh; Jeffrey Annis; Scott D Brown; Peter Cassey; Nathan J Evans; Raoul P P P Grasman; Guy E Hawkins; Andrew Heathcote; William R Holmes; Angelos-Miltiadis Krypotos; Colin N Kupitz; Fábio P Leite; Veronika Lerche; Yi-Shin Lin; Gordon D Logan; Thomas J Palmeri; Jeffrey J Starns; Jennifer S Trueblood; Leendert van Maanen; Don van Ravenzwaaij; Joachim Vandekerckhove; Ingmar Visser; Andreas Voss; Corey N White; Thomas V Wiecki; Jörg Rieskamp; Chris Donkin Journal: Psychon Bull Rev Date: 2019-08
Authors: Adam X Gorka; Ryan T Philips; Salvatore Torrisi; Leonardo Claudino; Katherine Foray; Christian Grillon; Monique Ernst Journal: Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging Date: 2022-04-02