Evidence for Selective Inhibitory Impairment in Individuals With Autism Spectrum Disorder
Evidence for Selective Inhibitory Impairment in Individuals With Autism Spectrum Disorder
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/a0024256
复制
发表时间：
2011-11-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
Miles, Judith H.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Christ, Shawn E.;Kester, Lindsay E.;Miles, Judith H.
目的：自闭症谱系障碍 (ASD) 患者面临的社交和沟通挑战往往因执行功能的额外困难而变得更加复杂。然而，目前尚不清楚自闭症谱系障碍患者的抑制控制能力受到多大程度的损害。本研究的目的是评估单个 ASD 样本中执行抑制控制的三种主要亚型，从而为在抑制控制的不同方面观察到的独特的 ASD 相关保留和损害模式提供新的见解。方法：样本包括 28 名患有 ASD 的儿童（平均年龄 = 13.1 岁）和 49 名神经功能未受损的儿童（平均年龄 = 13.3 岁）作为对照组。分别采用优效反应抑制任务、侧翼视觉过滤任务和主动干扰记忆任务来评估优效反应抑制、对干扰物干扰的抵抗力和对主动干扰的抵抗力。结果：在考虑了非抑制能力（例如处理速度）和整体功能水平的个体差异后，没有证据表明在强效反应抑制测试或主动干扰测试中的抑制性能存在群体相关差异。然而，在侧翼视觉过滤任务中，与自闭症谱系障碍相关的抑制控制损伤很明显。结论：总而言之，目前的研究结果表明，自闭症谱系障碍与抑制控制的某些（但不是全部）方面的损害有关。患有自闭症谱系障碍的人似乎很难忽视分散注意力的视觉信息，但强效反应抑制和对主动干扰的抵抗力相对完好。目前的研究结果也为抑制控制的多种类型模型提供了支持。
Objective: The social and communicative challenges faced by individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are often compounded by additional difficulties with executive function. It remains unclear, however, to what the extent individuals with ASD experienced impairment in inhibitory control. The objective of the present study was to assess the three main subtypes of executive inhibitory control within a single ASD sample thus providing new insight into the unique ASD-related pattern of sparing and impairment observed across different aspects of inhibitory control. Method: A sample of 28 children with ASD (mean age = 13.1 years) and a comparison group of 49 neurologically uncompromised children (mean age = 13.3 years) participated. A prepotent response inhibition task, a flanker visual filtering task, and a proactive interference memory task were used to evaluate prepotent response inhibition, resistance to distracter interference, and resistance to proactive interference, respectively. Results: After accounting for individual differences in noninhibition abilities (e.g., processing speed) and overall level of functioning, there was no evidence of group-related differences in inhibitory performance on the prepotent response inhibition test or proactive interference test. ASD-related impairments in inhibitory control were evident, however, on the flanker visual filtering task. Conclusions: Taken together, the present findings indicate that ASD is associated with impairments in some, but not all, aspects of inhibitory control. Individuals with ASD appear to have difficulty ignoring distracting visual information, but prepotent response inhibition and resistance to proactive interference are relatively intact. The current findings also provide support for a multitype model of inhibitory control.