China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Cognitive development – learning, knowing and problem-solving
Published in Ajay Sharma, Helen Cockerill, Lucy Sanctuary, Mary Sheridan's From Birth to Five Years, 2021
Ajay Sharma, Helen Cockerill, Lucy Sanctuary
When children are a little over 12 months old, they can just about fit a ball into a circular hole. Children progress from matching shapes that are easier to mentally rotate in space, such as a circle, to more geometric and irregular shapes. Until about 22 months of age, their attempts to fit other shapes into corresponding apertures only succeed because of their perseverance and acting on feedback – they keep trying different options until they succeed. They get better at categorising and visual scanning before matching a shape and stop pushing shapes in the wrong holes by 30 months. They also start to pre-adjust the shape's orientation to fit the aperture – a crucial skill needed to succeed. They are now mentally representing the shapes and the aperture and planning their action. By 30 months, they can choose one out of two shapes that will match the aperture before they pick up the shape. Most of the errors made from now on are more likely to be due to response inhibition, i.e. an inability to stop themselves picking up the wrong shape, rather than a perceptual-motor ability (Omkloo 2007).
Errors: Friend or foe?
Published in Catherine Haslam, Roy P.C. Kessels, Errorless Learning in Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 2018
Various paradigms have been used to assess error self-regulation or performance monitoring deficits in people with neurological disorders (e.g., Ford et al., 2001; Mathalon et al., 2003). In TBI research, the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART; see Robertson, Manly, Andrade, & Baddeley, 1997), a Go/No-Go continuous performance measure of sustained attention, has commonly been used. O’Keeffe et al. (2007) assessed error awareness on the SART by asking TBI participants to say the word “hit” after an error of commission. The Stop-Change or Stop-Signal Task (see Verbruggen & Logan, 2008) is a more difficult variation of Go/No-Go which assesses response inhibition or suppression of no-longer-required responses. This timed choice-reaction task requires participants to respond to an arrow cue with a left or right button press. On an unpredictable subset of trials participants are told to withhold their initial response and press a different button. If they fail to suppress their initial response they are told to self-correct by pressing the correct button. Self-correction only occurs if participants are aware of making an error; thus, the Stop-Change Task provides an index of performance monitoring or online awareness. Using this approach, Ham et al. (2014) found that low-performance monitoring after TBI was associated with reduced fronto-parietal functional connectivity and impaired self-awareness.
Cognition, Language and Intelligence
Published in Rolland S. Parker, Concussive Brain Trauma, 2016
The frontal cortex, together with the basal ganglia, plays an integrating, initiating role in response inhibition, together with sensory information from posterior brain regions. It participates in tasks requiring inhibition (response tendencies that are distracting or prepotent; mental set). This appears to explain the fact that there are comparable deficits in patients with frontal and basal ganglia lesions. Damage to these structures may also impair response initiation. There is some overlap of the systems for response initiation and inhibition (Rieger et al., 2003).
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
Prepotent response inhibition involves the ability to withhold a prepotent or dominant response. Common tests of prepotent response inhibition include the Stroop Color-Word test (Stroop, 1935), stop-signal (Logan, 1994), go/no-go (Drewe, 1975), and antisaccade tests (Everling & Fischer, 1998). In each of these tasks, participants are prompted to suppress a response tendency. As an example, in the go/no-go task, participants are presented with a series of stimuli (e.g., shapes) and are asked to press a button each time a shape is presented (e.g., triangle, square, cross), except when a designated non-target (e.g., circle) is presented. The target stimuli are presented more frequently than the non-target stimuli, thus creating a prepotent tendency to respond to the non-target, which should be inhibited.
Inhibitory Control, Conduct Problems, and Callous Unemotional Traits in Children with ADHD and Typically Developing Children
Published in Developmental Neuropsychology, 2022
Daniel A. Waschbusch, Dara E. Babinski, Whitney D. Fosco, Sarah M. Haas, James G. Waxmonsky, Nancy Garon, Shana Nichols, Sara King, Darcy A. Santor, Brendan F. Andrade
Response inhibition refers to the ability to override a dominant or automatic but inappropriate response (Friedman & Miyake, 2004). It is commonly assessed with the stop signal task which measures how much warning time an individual needs to stop an initiated behavior (Logan, Schachar, & Tannock, 1997). Those who need longer warning times have worse response inhibition. Numerous studies show that children with ADHD perform worse on the stop signal task (Lipszyc & Schachar, 2010). Less clear is what effect (if any) CP has on response inhibition among children who have ADHD. In a meta-analytic review of response inhibition as measured by the stop task, Lipszyc and Schachar (2010) found that the difference between groups with and without ADHD was moderate to large (standardized mean difference effect size = 0.62, p < .001), whereas the difference between groups with and without CP was small to moderate (standardized mean difference effect size = 0.30, p = .08). Only one study has examined this task while also taking CU into account (Dotterer et al., 2021). This study examined 474 adolescent twins (ages 7 to 18) recruited from the community and found that response inhibition as measured by performance on a stop task was not significantly correlated with measures of CP (r = −.01), CU (r = .03), or ADHD (r = .02). However, it is unclear if these findings generalize to youth with clinical levels of CP, CU, or ADHD, or if the wide age range of participants influenced the results.
Impaired response inhibition during a stop-signal task in children with Tourette syndrome is related to ADHD symptoms: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study
Published in The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry, 2021
Thaïra J. C. Openneer, Dennis van der Meer, Jan-Bernard C. Marsman, Natalie J. Forde, Sophie E. A. Akkermans, Jilly Naaijen, Jan K. Buitelaar, Pieter J. Hoekstra, Andrea Dietrich
Few studies investigated the neural underpinnings of response inhibition in children and adults with TS, yielding mixed results. Brain regions typically implicated in response inhibition (in healthy subjects) include the inferior frontal gyrus, which is thought to have an inhibitory role during response execution (Cai et al. 2014); the insula, thought to be important for detecting behaviourally salient events (Cai et al. 2014); motor areas, including the primary motor cortex and the dorsal premotor cortex, involved in the suppression of pending movements (Coxon et al. 2006; Mirabella et al. 2011; Mattia et al. 2013), and temporal and parietal areas, linked to attentional redirection and task-set maintenance (Sharp et al. 2010). Further, a role in the inhibitory network is played by two subcortical nuclei, that is, the subthalamic nuclei (Mirabella et al. 2012, 2013; Mancini, Modugno, et al. 2018) and the striatum (Zandbelt and Vink 2010). In adolescents and adults with TS, increased activation in prefrontal regions has been found during inhibitory control tasks relative to healthy controls, often in the presence of a relatively intact inhibitory performance (Serrien et al. 2005; Marsh et al. 2007). This is suggested to reflect increased activation of the inhibitory pathway to inhibit actions, perhaps as a compensatory consequence of the frequent need to inhibit tics (Plessen et al. 2007). These results were, however, not replicated in more recent studies in children and adolescents (Debes et al. 2011; Jung et al. 2013).