Stopping at a red light: Recruitment of inhibitory control by environmental cues

Shachar Hochman, Avishai Henik, Eyal Kalanthroff, Shachar Hochman, Avishai Henik, Eyal Kalanthroff

Abstract

Environmental cues can influence basic perceptual and attentional processes especially in an emotional context. In the current study, we aimed to investigate the effect of a non-emotional common environmental cue-a traffic light-on a higher cognitive operation-inhibition. In two experiments, we administered a novel version of the stop-signal task, in which the go task was to determine the color of a traffic light. In order to investigate the influence of each of the cues on inhibitory processes, separate tracking procedures (one for each cue) were applied simultaneously to the stop-signal delay. In Experiment 1, we found that reaction time in no-stop-signal trials was faster when a green traffic light was present, whereas stop-signal reaction time was longer when a red traffic light was present. In Experiment 2, neutral control cues were used in addition to a red and green light. The results indicate that the differences between red and green stem from an association between the color red and stop processes (rather than from the green-go association). These results strengthen previous findings showing the effect of environmental cues on attentional processes and go beyond them by showing that the effect is not restricted to emotional cues. Most importantly, the current study results suggest that environmental cues can also influence complex cognitive operations such as inhibitory control. These results might have specific implications for our understanding of the processes that underlie specific psychiatric disorders characterized by inhibitory deficit.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1. Example of a red traffic…
Fig 1. Example of a red traffic light stop-signal trial.
In both experiments, each trial started with a 1,000 ms fixation (a white plus sign at the center of a gray screen). Following this, a visual go stimulus appeared (i.e., picture of red, green, or black (the latter only in Experiment 2) traffic light that appeared randomly and in equal proportions). In no-stop-signal trials, the go stimulus stayed in view for 2,000 ms or until a key press. In stop-signal trials, an auditory tone was presented shortly after the appearance of the go-signal. The duration between the go- and stop-signal (SSD; stop-signal delay) was subjected to a tracking procedure that was applied separately for each type of stimulus (red or green traffic light). Each trial ended with a 1,000 ms inter-trial interval (gray screen). Examples of a red light stimuli are presented from Experiment 1 (3-aspects traffic light) and Experiment 2 (1-aspect traffic light).

References

    1. Johnsen BH, Laberg JC, Cox WM, Vaksdal A, Hugdahl K. Alcoholic subjects' attentional bias in the processing of alcohol-related words. Psychol Addict Behav. 1994; 8: 111–115.
    1. Cisek P. Integrated neural processes for defining potential actions and deciding between them: A computational model. J Neurosci. 2006; 26: 9761–9770. doi:
    1. Gibson JJ. The ecological approach to visual perception Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin; 1979.
    1. Makris S, Hadar AA, Yarrow K. Viewing objects and planning actions: On the potentiation of grasping behaviors by visual objects. Brain Cogn. 2011; 77: 257–264. doi:
    1. Hietanen JK, Nummenmaa L, Nyman MJ, Parkkola R, Hämäläinen H. Automatic attention orienting by social and symbolic cues activates different neural networks: An fMRI study. NeuroImage. 2006; 33: 406–413. doi:
    1. Hommel B, Pratt J, Colzato L, Godijn R. Symbolic control of visual attention. Psychol Sci. 2001; 12: 360–365. doi:
    1. Tipples J. Eye gaze is not unique: Automatic orienting in response to uninformative arrows. Psychon Bull Rev. 2002; 9: 314–318.
    1. Purkis HM, Lester KJ, Field AP. But what about the Empress of Racnoss? The allocation of attention to spiders and Doctor Who in a visual search task is predicted by fear and expertise. Emotion. 2011; 11: 1484–1488. doi:
    1. Neumann R, Strack F. Approach and avoidance: the influence of proprioceptive and exteroceptive cues on encoding of affective information. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000; 79: 39–48.
    1. Fazio RH. On the automatic activation of associated evaluations: An overview. Cogn Emot. 2001; 15: 115–141.
    1. Klauer KC, Musch J. Affective priming: Findings and theories In: Klauer KC, Musch J, editors. The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2003. pp. 7–50.
    1. Wiers RW, Eberl C, Rinck M, Becker ES, Lindenmeyer J. Retraining automatic action tendencies changes alcoholic patients’ approach bias for alcohol and improves treatment outcome. Psychol Sci. 2011; 22: 490–497. doi:
    1. Verbruggen F, Logan G. Response inhibition in the stop-signal paradigm. Trends Cogn Sci. 2008; 12: 418–424. doi:
    1. Logan GD. On the ability to inhibit thought and action: a user’s guide to the stop signal paradigm In: Dagenbach D, Carr TH, editors. Inhibitory processes in attention, memory and language. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1994. pp. 189–239.
    1. Logan GD, Cowan WB. On the ability to inhibit thought and action: A theory of an act of control. Psychol Rev. 1984; 91: 295–327.
    1. Logan GD, Cowan WB, Davis WB. On the ability to inhibit simple and choice reaction time responses: A model and a method. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1984; 10: 276–291.
    1. Verbruggen F, Logan GD. Models of response inhibition in the stop-signal and stop-change paradigms. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2009; 33: 647–661. doi:
    1. Verbruggen F, Logan GD. Automaticity of cognitive control: Goal priming in response-inhibition paradigms. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2009; 35: 1381–1388. doi:
    1. Monsell S. Task switching. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003; 7: 134–140.
    1. Rogers RD, Monsell S. Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1995; 124: 207–231.
    1. Waszak F, Hommel B, Allport DA. Task switching and long-term priming: Role of episodic stimulus-task bindings in task-shift costs. Cogn Psych. 2003; 46: 361–413.
    1. Kalanthroff E, Henik A. Individual but not fragile: Individual differences in task control predict Stroop facilitation. Conscious Cogn. 2013; 22: 413–419. doi:
    1. Kalanthroff E, Henik A. Preparation time modulates pro-active control and enhances task conflict in task switching. Psychol Res. 2014; 78: 276–288. doi:
    1. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007; 39: 175–191.‏
    1. Verbruggen F, Chambers CD, Logan GD. Fictitious inhibitory differences: how skewness and slowing distort the estimation of stopping latencies. Psychol Sci. 2013; 24: 352–362. doi:
    1. Verbruggen F, Logan GD. Evidence for capacity sharing when stopping. Cognition. 2015; 142: 81–95. doi:
    1. Eastwood JD, Smilek D, Merikle PM. Differential attentional guidance by unattended faces expressing positive and negative emotion. Percept Psychophys. 2001; 63: 1004–1013.‏
    1. Phelps EA, Ling S, Carrasco M. Emotion facilitates perception and potentiates the perceptual benefits of attention. Psychol Sci. 2006; 17: 292–299.‏ doi:
    1. Vuilleumier P. How brains beware: neural mechanisms of emotional attention. Trends Cogn Sci. 2005; 9: 585–594.‏ doi:
    1. Kalanthroff E, Cohen N, Henik A. Stop feeling: inhibition of emotional interference following stop-signal trials. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013; 7: 78 doi:
    1. Kalanthroff E, Goldfarb L, Henik A. Evidence for interaction between the stop signal and the Stroop task conflict. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2013; 39: 579–592. doi:
    1. Verbruggen F, De Houwer J. Do emotional stimuli interfere with response inhibition? Evidence from the stop signal paradigm. Cogn Emot. 2007; 21: 391–403.
    1. Verbruggen F, Liefooghe B, Vandierendonck A. The interaction between stop signal inhibition and distractor interference in the flanker and the Stroop task. Acta Psychol. 2004; 116: 21–37.
    1. Verbruggen F, Logan GD. Automatic and controlled response inhibition: associative learning in the go/no-go and stop-signal paradigms. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2008; 137: 649–672. doi:
    1. Jasinska AJ. Automatic inhibition and habitual control: alternative views in neuroscience research on response inhibition and inhibitory control. Front Behav Neurosci. 2013; 7: 25 doi:
    1. Verbruggen F, Best M, Bowditch WA, Stevens T, McLaren IP. The inhibitory control reflex. Neuropsychologia. 2014; 65: 263–278. doi:
    1. Allom V, Mullan B, Hagger M. Does inhibitory control training improve health behaviour? A meta-analysis. Health Psychol Rev. 2016; 10: 168–186. doi:
    1. Jones A, Di Lemma LC, Robinson E, Christiansen P, Nolan S, Tudur-Smith C, et al. Inhibitory control training for appetitive behaviour change: A meta-analytic investigation of mechanisms of action and moderators of effectiveness. Appetite. 2016; 97: 16–28. doi:
    1. Kalanthroff E, Anholt GE, Henik A. Always on guard: Test of high vs. low control conditions in obsessive-compulsive disorder patients. Psychiatry Res. 2014; 219: 322–328. doi:
    1. Kalanthroff E, Teichert T, Wheaton MG, Kimeldorf MB, Linkovski O, Ahmari SE, et al. The role of response inhibition in medicated and unmedicated obsessive‐compulsive disorder patients: evidence from the stop‐signal task Depress Anxiety. In press; 2016.
    1. Linkovski O, Kalanthroff E, Anholt EG, Henik A. Did I turn off the stove? Good inhibitory control can protect from influences of repeated checking. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2013; 44: 30–36. doi:
    1. Nigg JT. On inhibition/disinhibition in developmental psychopathology: views from cognitive and personality psychology and a working inhibition taxonomy. Psychol Bull. 2000; 126: 220–246.
    1. Schachar R, Logan GD. Impulsivity and inhibitory control in normal development and childhood psychopathology. Dev Psychol. 1990; 26: 710–720.
    1. Robbins TW, Clark L. Behavioral addictions. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2015; 30: 66–72. doi:
    1. Fillmore MT, Rush CR. Impaired inhibitory control of behavior in chronic cocaine users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2002; 66: 265–273.
    1. Goudriaan AE, Oosterlaan J, De Beurs E, Van Den Brink W. Neurocognitive functions in pathological gambling: a comparison with alcohol dependence, Tourette syndrome and normal controls. Addiction. 2006; 101: 534–547. doi:
    1. Nigg JT, Wong MM, Martel MM, Jester JM, Puttler LI, Glass JM. Poor response inhibition as a predictor of problem drinking and illicit drug use in adolescents at risk for alcoholism and other substance use disorders. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2006; 45: 468–475. doi:
    1. Chamberlain SR, Fineberg NA, Blackwell AD, Robbins TW, Sahakian BJ. Motor inhibition and cognitive flexibility in obsessive-compulsive disorder and trichotillomania. Am J Psychiat. 2006; 163: 1282–1284. doi:
    1. de Wit SJ, de Vries FE, van der Werf YD, Cath DC, Heslenfeld DJ, Veltman EM, et al. Presupplementary motor area hyperactivity during response inhibition: A candidate endophenotype of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Am J Psychiat. 2012; 169: 1100–1108. doi:
    1. Menzies L, Achard S, Chamberlain SR, Fineberg N, Chen CH, del Campo N, et al. Neurocognitive endophenotypes of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Brain. 2007; 130: 3223–3236. doi:
    1. Claes L, Nederkoorn C, Vandereycken W, Guerrieri R, Vertommen H. Impulsiveness and lack of inhibitory control in eating disorders. Eat Behav. 2006; 7: 196–203. doi:
    1. Kalanthroff E, Steinman SA, Schmidt AB, Campeas R, Simpson HB. Piloting a personalized computerized inhibitory training program for individuals with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. Psychother Psychosom. 2018: advanced online publication.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다