China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Changing the Paradigm from Neurochemical to Neuroelectrical Models
Published in Hanno W. Kirk, Restoring the Brain, 2020
The cortex mediates detailed analysis of sensory input from the structures below and then selects and modulates behavioral output. The cortex, as the most developed part of the brain, also exercises inhibitory control over the subcortical areas and emotional impulses from the limbic area. Indeed, inhibitory control is an important factor in how different levels of the central nervous system work together. Cortical areas process and filter incoming information in the associational areas of the hindbrain and then send that information forward for decisional output by the frontal parts of the cortex. Of specific importance in this process is the prefrontal cortex, the most highly developed region of our brain. The prefrontal cortex moderates (inhibits) impulses from the lower regions of the central nervous system and the automatic and reflexive reactions originating there.
Substance misuse and young people: Reward mechanisms
Published in Ilana B. Crome, Richard Williams, Roger Bloor, Xenofon Sgouros, Substance Misuse and Young People, 2019
Reward is a central component for driving incentive-based learning, eliciting appropriate responses to stimuli, and the development of goal-directed behaviours (Haber and Knutson, 2010). Motivational theories regarding drug use and addiction have made contrasting predictions with respect to how drug users may differentially recruit brain areas, such as the NAc/VS, in response to non-drug rewards (Bjork et al., 2008). The reward deficiency syndrome (RDS) and the allostatic hypotheses (AH), for example, postulate addiction as a deficit in DA circuitry for non-drug rewards, such that only drugs of abuse are able to produce a normal DA response in the NAc/VS (Blum et al., 2000; Koob et al., 2004). Alternatively, the ‘impulsivity hypothesis’ of addiction suggests that there is excessive approach and reduced inhibitory control behaviour in persons vulnerable to, or suffering from addiction (Bechara, 2005; Bickel et al., 2007). This hypothesis is, to some degree, supported by longitudinal studies that have shown that both poor self-control and high novelty-seeking in childhood are significant predictors of substance use in adolescence (Myers et al., 1995; Masse and Tremblay, 1997; Ding et al., 2004) and addiction in later life (Fergusson et al., 2007).
What is the evidence for psychobiological harm from the use of ‘ecstasy’ (MDMA)?
Published in Philip N. Murphy, The Routledge International Handbook of Psychobiology, 2018
Carl Alexander Roberts, Catharine Montgomery
Inhibitory control, or response inhibition, involves the inhibition of prepotent, or dominant, responses when they are not necessary. This function has been assessed in ecstasy-using populations with several tasks including: the traditional Stroop task, Random Letter Generation (RLG), Random Number Generation (RNG), Tower of Hanoi (ToH), Stop Signal and Go/NoGo tasks. The majority of published studies investigating this function using the Stroop task have yielded no ecstasy-related effects in terms of performance (Back-Madruga et al., 2003; Croft et al., 2001; Gouzoulis-Mayfrank et al., 2000; Halpern et al., 2011; Morgan et al., 2002; Wagner et al., 2012). Although Halpern et al. (2004) did observe differences with this task after subdividing their ecstasy-user group into heavy and light users. This was, however, not replicated in a follow-up study, using similarly pure ecstasy users. As such, the initial findings should be treated with caution. Wareing et al. (2000) observed deficits in ecstasy users (both current and former) compared to non-users with RLG; however, again, this was not replicated by Fisk et al. (2004), Fisk and Montgomery (2009), Montgomery et al. (2005), or Murphy et al. (2011). Of the Go/NoGo tasks reviewed (see Table 20.2), only one showed drug-related deficits behaviourally (Hoshi et al., 2007), and recent cannabis and cocaine use were implicated here; as such, it would appear that this function is relatively robust to MDMA use.
Inhibitory control as a potential treatment target for obesity
Published in Nutritional Neuroscience, 2023
M. T. de Klerk, P. A. M. Smeets, S. E. la Fleur
Inhibitory control ability is defined as the capacity to inhibit a pre-potent response [17]. It can be assessed using several validated paradigms that measure different aspects of inhibitory control: A Go/No-go task, a stop-signal task, and a delay discounting task (see Figure 1) [18]. These tasks provide a measure of general inhibitory control ability, although also food-specific variants have been developed (see Figure 2). Both food-specific and non-food inhibitory control tasks typically activate parts of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) [19–23]. The DLPFC is involved in inhibitory control by suppression of reward values (e.g. reward associated with a certain action), which are represented in ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) [24–26]. Therefore, connectivity between these brain areas is often observed in these tasks. The DLPFC is localized over 3 frontal gyri: the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), the middle frontal gyrus (MFG), and the superior frontal gyrus (SFG) [27]. The left IFG and MFG are proposed to be responsible for response selection, whereas the right hemisphere parts of these regions are involved in suppression of motor responses [20,28]. The SFG is thought to be involved in general response inhibition [29]. With non-food inhibitory control tasks, it has been found that lower inhibitory control is related to higher energy intake and weight gain in normal-weight individuals [30,31]. It has even been suggested that poor inhibitory control causes overeating [13].
Identifying and removing ableism from Tier 1 school-wide positive behaviour support practices
Published in International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 2023
Inhibitory control is a core executive function that enables individuals to direct their attention, regulate their emotional responses, and exert control over their own behaviours (Diamond 2013). In classrooms, teachers typically expect students to be able to maintain attention, stay emotionally regulated, and to not call out or disrupt the ‘good order of the classroom’ (Rivera-Calderon 2019, para. 44). As such, it was expected that matrices would include statements relating to a need for students to demonstrate inhibitory control. However, challenges relating to inhibitory control are common for neurodiverse students (i.e. students diagnosed with ADHD or Autistic students; Sibley et al.2019), individuals with intellectual disability (Flanigan et al.2019), and those diagnosed with a range of other disabilities (e.g. oppositional defiance disorder and conduct disorder; Bonham et al.2021). In the included matrices, behavioural expectation statements that reflected a higher response effort for individuals with inhibitory control challenges were identified in every primary, secondary, and special school matrix analysed. One or more behaviour indicators were located under 79% of the values/actions identified by primary schools, 87% of those in secondary schools, and 100% of those in special schools. Common behavioural indicators included ‘focus on learning and let others learn’ or ‘allow the teacher to teach and students to learn’ which appeared in 37 primary matrices and 10 secondary matrices.
Inhibitory Control in Male and Female Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)
Published in Developmental Neuropsychology, 2022
Mackenzie N. Cissne, Katherine R. Bellesheim, Shawn E. Christ
Inhibitory control can be defined broadly as the ability to suppress activation processing or expression of information that would otherwise interfere with the efficient attainment of a cognitive or behavioral goal (Dagenbach & Carr, 1994). Proficient inhibitory control is critical for efficiently navigating both the physical world and the complexities of our social world. Competence in social interactions relies on an individual’s ability to withhold responses, ignore distractors, and attend to relevant information (e.g., facial expressions, body posture) while ignoring or suppressing irrelevant information (e.g., background objects). Barkley (1997) proposed that proficient inhibitory control is also critical for other cognitive processing including working memory, self-regulation, internalization of speech, and reconstitution (i.e., novel problem solving). From a theoretical standpoint, inhibitory control can be conceptualized as comprising multiple subtypes (Friedman & Miyake, 2004) including prepotent response inhibition and resistance to distractor interference.