Effects of reward and punishment on the interaction between going and stopping in a selective stop-change task

Aberrant glutamatergic systems underlying impulsive behaviors: Insights from clinical and preclinical research

Impulsivity is a broad construct that often refers to one of several distinct behaviors and can be measured with self-report questionnaires and behavioral paradigms. Several psychiatric conditions are characterized by one or more forms of impulsive behavior, most notably the impulsive/hyperactive subtype of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), mood disorders, and substance use disorders. Monoaminergic neurotransmitters are known to mediate impulsive behaviors and are implicated in various psychiatric conditions. However, growing evidence suggests that glutamate, the major excitatory neurotransmitter of the mammalian brain, regulates important functions that become dysregulated in conditions like ADHD. The purpose of the current review is to discuss clinical and preclinical evidence linking glutamate to separate aspects of impulsivity, specifically motor impulsivity, impulsive choice, and affective impulsivity. Hyperactive glutamatergic activity in the corticostriatal and the cerebro-cerebellar pathways are major determinants of motor impulsivity. Conversely, hypoactive glutamatergic activity in frontal cortical areas and hippocampus and hyperactive glutamatergic activity in anterior cingulate cortex and nucleus accumbens mediate impulsive choice. Affective impulsivity is controlled by similar glutamatergic dysfunction observed for motor impulsivity, except a hyperactive limbic system is also involved. Loss of glutamate homeostasis in prefrontal and nucleus accumbens may contribute to motor impulsivity/affective impulsivity and impulsive choice, respectively. These results are important as they can lead to novel treatments for those with a condition characterized by increased impulsivity that are resistant to conventional treatments.

Neurocognitive functioning in adults with trichotillomania: Predictors of treatment response and symptom severity in a randomized control trial

Trichotillomania (TTM) is associated with impairments in response inhibition and cognitive flexibility, but it is unclear how such impairments relate to treatment outcome. The present study examined pre-treatment response inhibition and cognitive flexibility as predictors of treatment outcome, change in these domains from pre-to post-treatment, and associations with TTM severity. Participants were drawn from a randomized controlled trial comparing acceptance-enhanced behavior therapy (AEBT) to psychoeducation and supportive therapy (PST) for TTM. Adults completed assessments at pre-treatment (n = 88) and following 12 weeks of treatment (n = 68). Response inhibition and cognitive flexibility were assessed using the Stop Signal Task and Object Alternation Task, respectively. Participants completed the MGH-Hairpulling Scale. Independent evaluators administered the NIMH-Trichotillomania Severity Scale and Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement Scale. Higher pre-treatment TTM severity was associated with poorer pre-treatment cognitive flexibility, but not response inhibition. Better pre-treatment response inhibition performance predicted positive treatment response and lower post-treatment TTM symptom severity, irrespective of treatment assignment. Cognitive flexibility did not predict treatment response. After controlling for age, neither neurocognitive variable changed during treatment. Response inhibition and cognitive flexibility appear uniquely related to hair pulling severity and treatment response in adults with TTM. Implications for treatment delivery and development are discussed.

Reward prospect affects strategic adjustments in stop signal task

Interaction with the environment requires us to predict the potential reward that will follow our choices. Rewards could change depending on the context and our behavior adapts accordingly. Previous studies have shown that, depending on reward regimes, actions can be facilitated (i.e., increasing the reward for response) or interfered (i.e., increasing the reward for suppression). Here we studied how the change in reward perspective can influence subjects’ adaptation strategy. Students were asked to perform a modified version of the Stop-Signal task. Specifically, at the beginning of each trial, a Cue Signal informed subjects of the value of the reward they would receive; in one condition, Go Trials were rewarded more than Stop Trials, in another, Stop Trials were rewarded more than Go Trials, and in the last, both trials were rewarded equally. Subjects participated in a virtual competition, and the reward consisted of points to be earned to climb the leaderboard and win (as in a video game contest). The sum of points earned was updated with each trial. After a learning phase in which the three conditions were presented separately, each subject performed 600 trials testing phase in which the three conditions were randomly mixed. Based on the previous studies, we hypothesized that subjects could employ different strategies to perform the task, including modulating inhibition efficiency, adjusting response speed, or employing a constant behavior across contexts. We found that to perform the task, subjects preferentially employed a strategy-related speed of response adjustment, while the duration of the inhibition process did not change significantly across the conditions. The investigation of strategic motor adjustments to reward’s prospect is relevant not only to understanding how action control is typically regulated, but also to work on various groups of patients who exhibit cognitive control deficits, suggesting that the ability to inhibit can be modulated by employing reward prospects as motivational factors.

Stopping a Response When You Really Care about the Action: Considerations from a Clinical Perspective

Response inhibition, whether reactive or proactive, is mostly investigated in a narrow cognitive framework. We argue that it be viewed within a broader frame than the action being inhibited, i.e., in the context of emotion and motivation of the individual at large. This is particularly important in the clinical domain, where the motivational strength of an action can be driven by threat avoidance or reward seeking. The cognitive response inhibition literature has focused on stopping reactively with responses in anticipation of clearly delineated external signals, or proactively in limited contexts, largely independent of clinical phenomena. Moreover, the focus has often been on stopping efficiency and its correlates rather than on inhibition failures. Currently, the cognitive and clinical perspectives are incommensurable. A broader context may explain the apparent paradox where individuals with disorders characterised by maladaptive action control have difficulty inhibiting their actions only in specific circumstances. Using Obsessive Compulsive Disorder as a case study, clinical theorising has focused largely on compulsions as failures of inhibition in relation to specific internal or external triggers. We propose that the concept of action tendencies may constitute a useful common denominator bridging research into motor, emotional, motivational, and contextual aspects of action control failure. The success of action control may depend on the interaction between the strength of action tendencies, the ability to withhold urges, and contextual factors.

Investigating the effect of losses and gains on effortful engagement during an incentivized Go/NoGo task through anticipatory cortical oscillatory changes

Losses usually have greater subjective value (SV) than gains of equal nominal value but often cause a relative deterioration in effortful performance. Since losses and gains induce differing approach/avoidance behavioral tendencies, we explored whether incentive type interacted with approach/avoidance motor-sets. Alpha- and beta-band event-related desynchronization (ERD) was hypothesized to be weakest when participants expected a loss and prepared an inhibitory motor-set, and strongest when participants expected a gain and prepared an active motor-set. It was also hypothesized that effort would modulate reward and motor-set-related cortical activation patterns. Participants completed a cued Go/NoGo task while expecting a reward (+10p), avoiding a loss (-10p), or receiving no incentive (0p); and while expecting a NoGo cue with a probability of either .75 or .25. Pre-movement alpha- and beta-band EEG power was analyzed using the ERD method, and the SV of effort was evaluated using a cognitive effort discounting task. Gains incentivized faster RTs and stronger preparatory alpha band ERD compared to loss and no incentive conditions, while inhibitory motor-sets resulted in significantly weaker alpha-band ERD. However, there was no interaction between incentive and motor-sets. Participants were more willing to expend effort in losses compared to gain trials, although the SV of effort was not associated with ERD patterns or RTs. Results suggest that incentive and approach/avoidance motor tendencies modulate cortical activations prior to a speeded RT movement independently, and are not associated with the economic value of effort. The present results favor attentional explanations of the effect of incentive modality on effort.

Face the (trigger) failure: Trigger failures strongly drive the effect of reward on response inhibition

Response inhibition is typically understood as the ability to stop inappropriate actions and is often investigated using the stop-signal task, in which a go response, triggered by a go signal, has to be inhibited upon the onset of a stop signal. In this task, response inhibition has been formalized as a race between a go and a stop process, which allows the latency of the stop process (stop-signal reaction time; SSRT) to be estimated. Yet, non-parametric SSRT estimations assume that the stop process is initiated without fail, which appears problematic as it is known that participants fail to do so on a subset of trials ("trigger failures"). Importantly, non-parametric methods systematically overestimate SSRT when trigger failures are present, and a growing literature is demonstrating that reported SSRT differences between groups and individuals are also (or rather) driven by differential trigger-failure rates. In the present study, we extend this line of research to a within-individual manipulation, namely the influence of reward on stop performance. We first reanalyzed four data sets of studies that had reported a facilitating effect of stimulus-based reward on SSRTs. Reanalyzing this data, we found that reward decreased the rates of trigger failures. When accounting for these differential trigger-failure rates, the effect of reward on SSRTs (i.e., stop latency) appeared to be virtually abolished. We then conducted a preregistered online follow-up study, implementing a typical block-based reward manipulation. The results of this study indicated simultaneous reward effects on trigger-failure rates and on SSRT. In sum, the present results indicate that trigger failures are an important source of variance in response inhibition, dovetailing with an evolving multicomponential view of response inhibition.

Biasing Actions by Incentive Valence in an Approach/Avoidance Task

The present study investigates interactions between incentive valence and action, which mirror well-known valence-action biases in the emotional domain. In three joystick experiments, incentive valence (win/loss) and action type (approach/avoid) were signaled by distinct orthogonal stimulus features. By combining several design aspects, i.e., the use of bi-directional joystick movements, the inclusion of no-incentive baseline trials, and cue-locked versus target-locked valence and action signals, we tried to bridge between paradigms used in the emotional and motivational domain, and to understand previous, partly inconsistent results. In the first task variant (Experiment 1), we observed performance benefits for compatible mappings (win-approach; loss-avoid) relative to incompatible ones (loss-approach; win-avoid) when valence and action signals were target-locked, consistent with a fairly automatic response activation that can benefit or impair task performance. In contrast, cue-locked valence signals led to response facilitation (relative to a no-incentive baseline) more or less independent of actual valence (win/loss) and action type (approach/avoid), which is reminiscent of general facilitation effects of incentive cues across diverse cognitive tasks. Slight design variations did not change this main result pattern, indicating that it was neither driven by the close proximity between target and performance feedback (Experiment 2), nor by mere temporal coincidence of valence and action signals (Experiment 3), but rather by differences between preparatory (cued) and immediate (non-cued) effects of incentive valence. The present study provides novel insights regarding the nature of valence-action biases in the motivational domain and helps to integrate previous, partly inconsistent findings across domains.

Alcohol affects the P3 component of an adaptive stop signal task ERP

BACKGROUND

The P3 component of the event-related potential (ERP) has been particularly useful in alcohol research for identifying endophenotypes of alcohol-use disorder (AUD) risk in sober subjects. However, practice and/or fatigue reduce P3 amplitude, limiting the ability to ascertain acute and adaptive effects of alcohol exposure. Here, we report acute alcohol effects on P3 amplitude and latency using an adaptive stop signal task (aSST).

METHODS

One hundred forty-eight non-dependent moderate to heavy social drinkers, ages 21 to 27, participated in two single-blind, alcohol or placebo, counterbalanced sessions approximately 1 week apart. During each session, subjects performed an adaptive stop signal task (aSST) at 1) baseline, 2) upon reaching the target 60 mg/dL breath alcohol concentration or at the equivalent time during the placebo session, and 3) approximately 135 min later while the breath alcohol concentration was clamped. Here, we report on differences between baseline and first subsequent measurements across the experimental sessions. During each aSST run, the stop signal delay (SSD, the time between stop and go signals) adjusted trial-by-trial, based on the subject's performance.

RESULTS

The aSST reliably generated a STOP P3 component that did not change significantly with repeated task performance. The pre-infusion SSD distribution was bimodal, with mean values several hundred msec apart (FAST: 153 msec and SLOW: 390 msec). This suggested different response strategies: FAST SSD favoring "going" over "stopping", and SLOW SSD favoring "stopping" over "going". Exposure to alcohol at 60 mg/dL differentially affected the amplitude and latency of the STOP P3 according to SSD group. Alcohol significantly reduced P3 amplitude in the SLOW SSD compared to the FAST SSD group, but significantly increased P3 latency in the FAST SSD compared to the SLOW SSD group.

CONCLUSIONS

The aSST is a robust and sensitive task for detecting alcohol-induced changes in inhibition behavior as measured by the P3 component in a within-subject design. Alcohol was associated with P3 component changes, which varied by SSD group, suggesting a differential effect as a function of task strategy. Overall, the data support the potential utility of the aSST in the detection of alcohol response-related AUD risk.