Caswell Amy Jane, Morgan Michael John, Duka Theodora
Behavioural and Clinical Neuroscience, School of Psychology, University of Sussex, <location>Brighton, UK</location>
Exp Psychol. 2013;60(5):324-34. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000202.
Literature on impulsivity regularly claims inhibitory control deficits underlie impulsive behavior. The current study investigated whether taxing inhibitory control will increase reflection (decision making under conditions of uncertainty), temporal (delay of gratification), and motor impulsivity (behavioral disinhibition). Inhibitory control was challenged, via a random letter generation task presented during responding to three impulsivity measures: the Information Sampling Task (IST), Single Key Impulsivity Paradigm, and the Stop Signal Task (SST). Participants (n = 33) were assigned to the inhibitory control challenging (experimental) condition, or to a control condition in which inhibitory control was not challenged. The SST was affected by the inhibitory control challenge: participants in the experimental condition displayed increased motor impulsivity, evidenced in longer stop signal reaction times (SSRTs) compared to the control group. The manipulation did not affect reflection- or temporal- impulsivity measures. These data support the suggestion that the mechanisms underlying the motor subtype of impulsivity are dissociable from the temporal and reflection subtypes, and that engagement of inhibitory control is not necessary to prevent impulsive decision making.
关于冲动性的文献经常声称抑制控制缺陷是冲动行为的基础。本研究调查了对抑制控制施加压力是否会增加反思性(在不确定条件下的决策)、时间性(延迟满足)和运动冲动性(行为抑制解除)。通过在对三种冲动性测量方法(信息采样任务(IST)、单键冲动范式和停止信号任务(SST))做出反应期间呈现的随机字母生成任务来挑战抑制控制。参与者(n = 33)被分配到抑制控制挑战(实验)条件,或未对抑制控制进行挑战的对照条件。停止信号任务受到抑制控制挑战的影响:与对照组相比,实验条件下的参与者表现出运动冲动性增加,这在更长的停止信号反应时间(SSRT)中得到证明。该操作并未影响反思性或时间性冲动性测量。这些数据支持以下观点:冲动性运动亚型的潜在机制与时间性和反思性亚型是可分离的,并且抑制控制的参与对于防止冲动性决策并非必要。