Brudan Ovidiu I, Eisenbarth Hedwig, Glautier Steven
University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2025 Jan 13;78(10):17470218241310859. doi: 10.1177/17470218241310859.
Conditioned inhibition and occasion setting are two examples of inhibitory associative phenomena that have traditionally been studied in isolation from non-associative inhibition. Non-associative inhibition has been assessed using a variety of measures (e.g., stop signal reaction time and impulsivity questionnaires) and weak non-associative inhibition has been linked to a variety of disorders including addiction. However, even though both associative and non-associative inhibition have a common core-both involve suppression of behaviour, there has been relatively little study of potential relationships between these different forms of inhibition. In the current investigation, we carried out exploratory analyses to look for possible links between associative inhibition and four non-associative measures of inhibition, namely, (1) stop signal reaction time, (2) delay discounting, and scores on (3) the Behaviour Inhibition System/Behaviour Activation System and (4) Barratt Impulsivity questionnaires. Despite the fact that we carefully selected data to minimise noise in the measurement of associative inhibition, we found no clear evidence of links between associative and non-associative inhibition. We therefore conclude that while there may be superficial similarities between these different forms of inhibition they are likely to have different substrates.
条件性抑制和情境设定是抑制性联想现象的两个例子,传统上它们是与非联想性抑制分开进行研究的。非联想性抑制已通过多种测量方法进行评估(例如,停止信号反应时间和冲动性问卷),并且微弱的非联想性抑制与包括成瘾在内的多种障碍有关。然而,尽管联想性抑制和非联想性抑制都有一个共同的核心——两者都涉及行为抑制,但对这些不同形式的抑制之间的潜在关系的研究相对较少。在当前的研究中,我们进行了探索性分析,以寻找联想性抑制与四种非联想性抑制测量方法之间的可能联系,即:(1)停止信号反应时间,(2)延迟折扣,以及(3)行为抑制系统/行为激活系统的得分和(4)巴拉特冲动性问卷的得分。尽管我们仔细选择了数据以尽量减少联想性抑制测量中的噪声,但我们没有发现联想性抑制和非联想性抑制之间存在联系的明确证据。因此,我们得出结论,虽然这些不同形式的抑制之间可能存在表面上的相似之处,但它们可能具有不同的基础。