Jauregi Ainara, Kessler Klaus, Hassel Stefanie
Aston Brain Centre, School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Department of Psychiatry, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Front Psychol. 2018 Nov 28;9:2306. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02306. eCollection 2018.
Impulsivity is regarded as a multifaceted construct that comprises two dimensions: rapid-response impulsivity and reward-delay impulsivity. It is unclear, however, which aspects of trait impulsivity, as assessed by self-report measures are related to rapid-response impulsivity and/or to reward-delay impulsivity, as different results have been reported in studies using both self-report and cognitive measures. This study aimed to directly relate self-report measures of impulsivity to cognitive measures of impulsivity in individuals at low- or high-levels on two impulsivity dimensions, specifically rapid-response impulsivity and reward-delay impulsivity. Participants were classified into high- or low-impulsivity groups based on (1) level of rapid-response impulsivity (determined by BIS-11 Motor subscale scores); (2) level of reward-delay impulsivity (determined by BIS/BAS subscale scores); and (3) a combination of rapid-response impulsivity and reward-delay impulsivity levels. Impulsivity was assessed using Go/No-Go, Stop-Signal and Delay-Discounting tasks and self-report measures. The high rapid-response impulsivity group showed significantly higher reward-delay impulsivity on both, the Delay-Discounting tasks and on self-report measures assessing reward-delay impulsivity, than the low-risk group. Based on the level of reward-delay impulsivity, the high reward-delay impulsivity group scored significantly higher on task-based (cognitive) and self-report measures assessing rapid-response inhibition than the low reward-delay impulsivity group. Combining both dimensions of impulsivity showed that the high-impulsivity group performed significantly worse in rapid-response paradigms and temporally discounted significantly more impulsively than the low-impulsivity group. Thus, combined impulsivity factors provide better assessment of impulsivity than each dimension alone. In conclusion, robust differences in impulsivity can be identified in non-clinical young adults.
冲动性被视为一个多方面的概念,它包含两个维度:快速反应冲动性和奖励延迟冲动性。然而,目前尚不清楚通过自我报告测量评估的特质冲动性的哪些方面与快速反应冲动性和/或奖励延迟冲动性相关,因为在使用自我报告和认知测量的研究中报告了不同的结果。本研究旨在直接将冲动性的自我报告测量与低或高冲动性水平个体在两个冲动性维度上的冲动性认知测量联系起来,具体而言是快速反应冲动性和奖励延迟冲动性。参与者根据以下标准分为高冲动性或低冲动性组:(1)快速反应冲动性水平(由BIS-11运动子量表得分确定);(2)奖励延迟冲动性水平(由BIS/BAS子量表得分确定);以及(3)快速反应冲动性和奖励延迟冲动性水平的组合。使用Go/No-Go、停止信号和延迟折扣任务以及自我报告测量来评估冲动性。高快速反应冲动性组在延迟折扣任务和评估奖励延迟冲动性的自我报告测量上均显示出比低风险组显著更高的奖励延迟冲动性。基于奖励延迟冲动性水平,高奖励延迟冲动性组在评估快速反应抑制的基于任务(认知)和自我报告测量上的得分显著高于低奖励延迟冲动性组。结合冲动性的两个维度表明,高冲动性组在快速反应范式中的表现显著更差,并且在时间折扣上比低冲动性组更冲动。因此,综合冲动性因素比单独的每个维度能更好地评估冲动性。总之,在非临床年轻成年人中可以识别出冲动性的显著差异。