Associations between trait impulsivity and prepotent response inhibition
Associations between trait impulsivity and prepotent response inhibition
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/13803395.2012.706261
复制
发表时间：
2012-01-01
影响因子：
2.2
通讯作者：
Ettinger, Ulrich
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Aichert, Desiree S.;Woestmann, Nicola M.;Ettinger, Ulrich
本研究探讨了冲动性和抑制性控制之间的关系，这两个特征在许多精神疾病中都是受损的。冲动性通常使用心理测量自我报告问卷来测量，而对不适当的冲动性运动反应的抑制通常使用实验实验室任务来测量。然而，目前尚不清楚心理测量学评估的冲动性和实验操作的抑制表现是否相互关联。因此，我们在一个大样本中使用相关和潜在变量分析来调查这两个性状之间的关系。504名健康受试者完成了Barratt冲动性量表（BIS-11）和反扫视任务、Stroop任务、停止信号任务和去/不去任务4种优势反应抑制范式。我们发现BIS冲动性与去/不去任务中的委托错误和反扫视任务中的方向错误有显著的关联，超出了年龄、性别和智力的影响。潜变量分析(a)支持这一观点，即所有四种抑制措施都负载于相同的潜在构式，即“强性反应抑制”；(b)显示，强性反应抑制构式的12%的方差可以用BIS冲动性来解释。总的来说，观察到的关联幅度很小，这表明虽然有一部分的变异可以用心理测量特征冲动性来解释，但大部分的变异仍然无法解释。因此，这些发现表明，优势反应抑制范式只能在有限的程度上解释心理测量特征冲动。对冲动症状患者群体研究的意义进行了讨论。
This study addresses the relationship between trait impulsivity and inhibitory control, two features known to be impaired in a number of psychiatric conditions. While impulsivity is often measured using psychometric self-report questionnaires, the inhibition of inappropriate, impulsive motor responses is typically measured using experimental laboratory tasks. It remains unclear, however, whether psychometrically assessed impulsivity and experimentally operationalized inhibitory performance are related to each other. Therefore, we investigated the relationship between these two traits in a large sample using correlative and latent variable analysis. A total of 504 healthy individuals completed the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11) and a battery of four prepotent response inhibition paradigms: the antisaccade, Stroop, stop-signal, and go/no-go tasks. We found significant associations of BIS impulsivity with commission errors on the go/no-go task and directional errors on the antisaccade task, over and above effects of age, gender, and intelligence. Latent variable analysis (a) supported the idea that all four inhibitory measures load on the same underlying construct termed "prepotent response inhibition" and (b) revealed that 12% of variance of the prepotent response inhibition construct could be explained by BIS impulsivity. Overall, the magnitude of associations observed was small, indicating that while a portion of variance in prepotent response inhibition can be explained by psychometric trait impulsivity, the majority of variance remains unexplained. Thus, these findings suggest that prepotent response inhibition paradigms can account for psychometric trait impulsivity only to a limited extent. Implications for studies of patient populations with symptoms of impulsivity are discussed.