According to the Dual Mechanisms of Control (DMC) framework, cognitive control can be divided into two strategies: proactive cognitive control, which relies mainly on the active maintenance of contextual information relevant to the ongoing task; and reactive cognitive control, which is a form of transient control triggered by an external cue. Although cognitive control has been studied extensively, little is known about the specificities of inhibition within the framework of the DMC model and the influence of interindividual variables on inhibitory control.
Thanks to an inhibitory version of the continuous performance task (CPT), we studied behavioral performances and Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) related to proactive and reactive inhibition, and their links to psychological profile and cognitive performances. One hundred and five young adults underwent the task, along with a short clinical and cognitive evaluation.
We were able to observe ERPs related to proactive (cue-N1, cue-N2, cue-P3, and the contingent negative variation) and reactive inhibitory control (target-N2 and target-P3). Our results showed that proactive strategies appeared to be linked with impulsivity, working memory abilities, dominant response inhibition, gender, and the consumption pattern of nicotine. Reactive strategies appeared to be linked with attentional and working memories abilities.
Overall, the inhibitory AX-CPT allowed a specific investigation of cognitive control within the framework of the DMC based on behavioral and ERP variables. This provided us an opportunity to investigate the principal ERP components related to proactive and reactive inhibitory control strategies as well as to link them with specific clinical and cognitive variables.
BotvinickMMBraverTSBarchDMCarterCSCohenJD. Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychol Rev.2001;108(3):624‐652.
2.
Braver TS, Gray JR, Burgess GC. Explaining the many varieties of working memory variation: dual mechanisms of cognitive control. In: Conway ARA, Jarrold C, Kane MJ, Miyake A, Towse JN, (eds) Variation in working memory. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 76–106.
3.
BraverTS. The variable nature of cognitive control: a dual mechanisms framework. Trends Cogn Sci.2012;16(2):106‐113.
4.
VerbruggenFLoganG. Control in response inhibition. In: The Wiley handbook of cognitive control. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2017:97‐110.
5.
KarayanidisFWhitsonLRHeathcoteAMichiePT. Variability in proactive and reactive cognitive control processes across the adult lifespan. Front Psychol.2011;2:318.
6.
CzernochowskiD. ERPs dissociate proactive and reactive control: evidence from a task-switching paradigm with informative and uninformative cues. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2014;15(1):117‐131.
7.
WestRChoiPTraversS. The influence of negative affect on the neural correlates of cognitive control. Int J Psychophysiol.2010;76(2):107‐117.
8.
HolmesAJPizzagalliDA. Task feedback effects on conflict monitoring and executive control: relationship to subclinical measures of depression. Emotion. 2007;7(1):68.
9.
GraneVABrunnerJFEndestadT, et al. ERP correlates of proactive and reactive cognitive control in treatment-naïve adult ADHD. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(7):e0159833 11.
ElchleppHLavricAChambersCDVerbruggenF. Proactive inhibitory control: a general biasing account. Cognit Psychol.2016;86:27‐61.
12.
LuDZhangHKangCGuoT. ERPs evidence for the relationship between fluid intelligence and cognitive control. Neuroreport. 2016;27(6):379‐383.
13.
van WouweNCBandGPHRidderinkhofKR. Positive affect modulates flexibility and evaluative control. J Cogn Neurosci.2011;23(3):524‐539.
14.
ChaillouACGierschAHoonakkerM,et al.Evidence of impaired proactive control under positive affect. Neuropsychologia. 2018;114:110‐117.
15.
SchevernelsHBombekeKVan der BorghtLHopfJ-MKrebsRMBoehlerCN. Electrophysiological evidence for the involvement of proactive and reactive control in a rewarded stop-signal task. NeuroImage. 2015;121:115‐125.
16.
BaileyKBartholowBD. Alcohol words elicit reactive cognitive control in low-sensitivity drinkers. Psychophysiology. 2016;53(11):1751‐1759.
17.
KropotovJPonomarevVTereshchenkoEPMüllerAJänckeL. Effect of aging on ERP components of cognitive control. Front Aging Neurosci.2016;8:69.
18.
SmithJJamadarSProvostAMichieP. Motor and non-motor inhibition in the Go/NoGo task: an ERP and fMRI study. Int J Psychophysiol.2013;87(3):244‐253.
19.
BraverTSPaxtonJLLockeHSBarchDM. Flexible neural mechanisms of cognitive control within human prefrontal cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA.2009;106(18):7351‐7356.
20.
ChambersCDGaravanHBellgroveMA. Insight into the neural basis of response inhibition from cognitive and clinical neuroscience. Neurosci Biobehav Rev.2009;33(5):631‐648.
21.
PerriRL. Is there a proactive and a reactive mechanism of inhibition? Towards an executive account of the attentional inhibitory control model. Behav Brain Res.2020;377:112243.
22.
Sharif-RaziMHodginsDCGoghariVM. Reactive and proactive control mechanisms of response inhibition in gambling disorder. Psychiatry Res.2019;272:114‐121.
23.
XiangLChenYChenAZhangFXuFWangB. The effects of trait impulsivity on proactive and reactive interference control. Brain Res.2018;1680:93‐104.
24.
VanderhasseltMADe RaedtRDe PaepeA,et al.Abnormal proactive and reactive cognitive control during conflict processing in major depression. J Abnorm Psychol.2014;123(1):68‐80.
25.
FalesCLBarchDMBurgessGC,et al.Anxiety and cognitive efficiency: differential modulation of transient and sustained neural activity during a working memory task. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci.2008;8(3):239‐253.
26.
YangYMiskovichTALarsonCL. State anxiety impairs proactive but enhances reactive control. Front Psychol.2018;9:2570.
27.
JimuraKLockeHSBraverTS. Prefrontal cortex mediation of cognitive enhancement in rewarding motivational contexts. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA.2010;107(19):8871‐8876.
28.
PetitGKornreichCNoëlXVerbanckPCampanellaS. Alcohol-related context modulates performance of social drinkers in a visual Go/No-Go task: a preliminary assessment of event-related potentials. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(5):e37466.
29.
FrankenIHLuijtenMvan der VeenFMVan StrienJW. Cognitive control in young heavy drinkers: an ERP study. Drug Alcohol Depend.2017;175:77‐83.
30.
DetandtSBazanASchröderE,et al.A smoking-related background helps moderate smokers to focus: an event-related potential study using a Go-NoGo task. Clin Neurophysiol.2017;128(10):1872‐1885.
31.
SaundersJBAaslandOGBaborTFde la FuenteJRGrantM. Development of the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption—II. Addiction. 1993;88(6):791‐804.
32.
SkinnerHA. The drug abuse screening test. Addict Behav.1982;7(4):363‐371.
33.
FagerströmKO. Measuring degree of physical dependence to tobacco smoking with reference to individualization of treatment. Addict Behav.1978;3(3-4):235‐241.
34.
BeckATSteerRACarbinMG. Psychometric properties of the beck depression inventory: twenty-five years of evaluation. Clin Psychol Rev.1988;8(1):77‐100.
35.
SpielbergerCDGorsuchRL. Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory (form Y):(“self-evaluation questionnaire”). Consulting Psychologists Press, Incorporated; 1983.
36.
WhitesideSPLynamDR. Understanding the role of impulsivity and externalizing psychopathology in alcohol abuse: application of the UPPS impulsive behavior scale. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol.2003;11(3):210‐217.
37.
CarverCSWhiteTL. Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol.1994;67(2):319.
38.
DiasECFoxeJJJavittDC. Changing plans: a high density electrical mapping study of cortical control. Cereb Cortex.2003:13(7):701‐715.
39.
Wechsler D. WAIS-III, Wechsler adult intelligence scale: admin-istration and scoring manual. Psychological Corporation. 1997.
40.
BaddeleyA. Working memory: looking back and looking forward. Nat Rev Neurosci.2003;4(10):829‐839.
41.
StroopJR. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. J Exp Psychol.1935;18(6):643.
42.
BrickenkampR. Manuel du test d2. Editest; 1969.
43.
CostanzaARothenSAchabS,et al.Impulsivity and impulsivity-related endophenotypes in suicidal patients with substance use disorders: an exploratory study. Int J Ment Health Addict.2021;19(5):1729‐1744.
44.
Holm S. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat. 1979;6(2):65–70.
45.
CriaudMWardakCBen HamedSBallangerBBoulinguezP. Proactive inhibitory control of response as the default state of executive control. Front Psychol.2012;3:59.
46.
NobleWS. How does multiple testing correction work?Nat Biotechnol.2009;27(12):1125‐1137.
47.
SmittenaarPRutledgeRBZeidmanP,et al.Proactive and reactive response inhibition across the lifespan. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(10):e0140383.
48.
SpeerNKJacobyLLBraverTS. Strategy-dependent changes in memory: effects on behavior and brain activity. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci.2003;3(3):155‐167.
49.
KalanthroffEAvnitAHenikADavelaarEJUsherM. Stroop proactive control and task conflict are modulated by concurrent working memory load. Psychon Bull Rev.2014;22(3):869‐875.
50.
Oscar-BermanM. Alcohol-related ERP changes in cognition. Alcohol. 1987;4(4):289‐292.
51.
BuzzellGAFedotaJRRobertsDMMcDonaldCG. The N2 ERP component as an index of impaired cognitive control in smokers. Neurosci Lett.2014;563:61‐65.
52.
MeyerHCBucciDJ. Neural and behavioral mechanisms of proactive and reactive inhibition. Learn Mem.2016;23(10):504‐514.
53.
BellSFroeglierB. Association between smoking abstinence, inhibitory control, and smoking behavior: an fMRI study. Front Psychiatry.2021;1:150.
54.
WilcoxCEDekonenkoCJMayerARBogenschutzMPTurnerJA. Cognitive control in alcohol use disorder: deficits and clinical relevance. Rev Neurosci.2014;25(1):1‐24.
55.
RobbinsTWGillanCMSmithDGde WitSErscheKD. Neurocognitive endophenotypes of impulsivity and compulsivity: towards dimensional psychiatry. Trends Cogn Sci.2012;16(1):81‐91.
