Deciphering the Neural Effects of Emotional, Motivational, and Cognitive Challenges on Inhibitory Control Processes

Le résumé fourni par la source

ABSTRACT Converging lines of research indicate that inhibitory control is likely to be compromised in contexts that place competing demands on emotional, motivational, and cognitive systems, potentially leading to damaging impulsive behavior. The objective of this study was to identify the neural impact of three challenging contexts that typically compromise self‐regulation and weaken impulse control. Participants included 66 healthy adults ( M / SD age = 29.82/10.21 years old, 63.6% female) who were free of psychiatric disorders and psychotropic medication use. Participants completed a set of novel Go/NoGo (GNG) paradigms in the scanner, which manipulated contextual factors to induce (i) aversive emotions, (ii) appetitive drive, or (iii) concurrent working memory load. Voxelwise analysis of neural activation during each of these tasks was compared to that of a neutral GNG task. Findings revealed differential inhibition‐related activation in the aversive emotions and appetitive drive GNG tasks relative to the neutral task in frontal, parietal and temporal cortices, suggesting emotional and motivational contexts may suppress activation of these cortical regions during inhibitory control. In contrast, the GNG task with a concurrent working memory load showed widespread increased activation across the cortex compared to the neutral task, indicative of enhanced recruitment of executive control regions. Results suggest the neural circuitry recruited for inhibitory control varies depending on the concomitant emotional, motivational, and cognitive demands of a given context. This battery of GNG tasks can be used by researchers interested in studying unique patterns of neural activation associated with inhibitory control across three clinically relevant contexts that challenge self‐regulation and confer risk for impulsive behavior.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.