{"title":"反应抑制是一种不同于普通执行功能的控制过程的证据:两项研究的因子分析","authors":"Grant S Shields, Andrew P Yonelinas","doi":"10.1037/xlm0001352","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The dominant model of executive functions, which has held for over two decades, contends that various aspects of seemingly disparate forms of inhibitory control-for example, inhibiting a prepotent response, or inhibiting irrelevant thoughts and distractions-are in fact manifestations of a single latent executive function. Recent work, however, has cast doubt on this dominant model, as certain conditions can dissociate performance on tasks thought to index inhibitory control. Moreover, issues related to task reliability and latent estimation of inhibition processes have prompted questions about whether the structure of inhibitory control can even be reliably estimated at a latent level. We addressed these issues in two studies of healthy young adults (Study 1 <i>N</i> = 154, Study 2, <i>N</i> = 279), examining seven then 12 different tasks taken by prior research to assess inhibitory control. Contrary to the dominant model of executive functions, we found that, at a latent level, inhibitory control was best fit by a replicable two-factor solution, with response inhibition as a distinct executive function. Further, our data suggested that prior work on executive functions may not have observed a response inhibition factor due to task selections (i.e., including either one of two specific tasks was critical to identifying a separate response inhibition factor). Therefore, contrary to the current primary theoretical model of executive functions, these results suggest that response inhibition is, in fact, a distinct control process from the control process underpinning other forms of inhibition, which has important implications for designing interventions and assessing outcomes related to inhibitory control. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":50194,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence for response inhibition as a control process distinct from the common executive function: A two-study factor analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Grant S Shields, Andrew P Yonelinas\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/xlm0001352\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The dominant model of executive functions, which has held for over two decades, contends that various aspects of seemingly disparate forms of inhibitory control-for example, inhibiting a prepotent response, or inhibiting irrelevant thoughts and distractions-are in fact manifestations of a single latent executive function. Recent work, however, has cast doubt on this dominant model, as certain conditions can dissociate performance on tasks thought to index inhibitory control. Moreover, issues related to task reliability and latent estimation of inhibition processes have prompted questions about whether the structure of inhibitory control can even be reliably estimated at a latent level. We addressed these issues in two studies of healthy young adults (Study 1 <i>N</i> = 154, Study 2, <i>N</i> = 279), examining seven then 12 different tasks taken by prior research to assess inhibitory control. Contrary to the dominant model of executive functions, we found that, at a latent level, inhibitory control was best fit by a replicable two-factor solution, with response inhibition as a distinct executive function. Further, our data suggested that prior work on executive functions may not have observed a response inhibition factor due to task selections (i.e., including either one of two specific tasks was critical to identifying a separate response inhibition factor). Therefore, contrary to the current primary theoretical model of executive functions, these results suggest that response inhibition is, in fact, a distinct control process from the control process underpinning other forms of inhibition, which has important implications for designing interventions and assessing outcomes related to inhibitory control. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50194,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001352\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001352","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
执行功能的主流模式已经存在了二十多年,该模式认为,看似不同形式的抑制控制的各个方面--例如,抑制先期反应,或抑制无关的想法和分心--实际上是单一潜在执行功能的表现形式。然而,最近的研究对这一主流模型产生了怀疑,因为在某些情况下,被认为是抑制控制指标的任务表现会出现分离。此外,与任务可靠性和抑制过程的潜估计有关的问题也引发了人们的疑问:抑制控制的结构是否能在潜水平上得到可靠的估计。我们在两项针对健康年轻成年人的研究(研究1,人数=154;研究2,人数=279)中探讨了这些问题,分别考察了先前研究中用于评估抑制控制的7项和12项不同任务。与执行功能的主流模型相反,我们发现,在潜意识层面上,抑制控制最符合可复制的双因素解决方案,反应抑制是一种独特的执行功能。此外,我们的数据还表明,由于任务选择的原因,先前关于执行功能的研究可能没有观察到反应抑制因子(也就是说,包含两个特定任务中的一个对于识别单独的反应抑制因子至关重要)。因此,与目前执行功能的主要理论模型相反,这些结果表明,反应抑制实际上是一个不同于其他形式抑制的控制过程,这对设计干预措施和评估与抑制控制有关的结果具有重要意义。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
Evidence for response inhibition as a control process distinct from the common executive function: A two-study factor analysis.
The dominant model of executive functions, which has held for over two decades, contends that various aspects of seemingly disparate forms of inhibitory control-for example, inhibiting a prepotent response, or inhibiting irrelevant thoughts and distractions-are in fact manifestations of a single latent executive function. Recent work, however, has cast doubt on this dominant model, as certain conditions can dissociate performance on tasks thought to index inhibitory control. Moreover, issues related to task reliability and latent estimation of inhibition processes have prompted questions about whether the structure of inhibitory control can even be reliably estimated at a latent level. We addressed these issues in two studies of healthy young adults (Study 1 N = 154, Study 2, N = 279), examining seven then 12 different tasks taken by prior research to assess inhibitory control. Contrary to the dominant model of executive functions, we found that, at a latent level, inhibitory control was best fit by a replicable two-factor solution, with response inhibition as a distinct executive function. Further, our data suggested that prior work on executive functions may not have observed a response inhibition factor due to task selections (i.e., including either one of two specific tasks was critical to identifying a separate response inhibition factor). Therefore, contrary to the current primary theoretical model of executive functions, these results suggest that response inhibition is, in fact, a distinct control process from the control process underpinning other forms of inhibition, which has important implications for designing interventions and assessing outcomes related to inhibitory control. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition publishes studies on perception, control of action, perceptual aspects of language processing, and related cognitive processes.