24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Response Inhibition and Interference Suppression in Individuals With Down Syndrome Compared to Typically Developing Children

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The present study aims to investigate inhibition in individuals with Down Syndrome compared to typically developing children with different inhibitory tasks tapping response inhibition and interference suppression. Previous studies that aimed to investigate inhibition in individuals with Down Syndrome reported contradictory results that are difficult to compare given the different types of inhibitory tasks used and the lack of reference to a theoretical model of inhibition that was tested in children (see Bunge et al., 2002; Gandolfi et al., 2014). Three groups took part in the study: 32 individuals with Down Syndrome (DS) with a mean age of 14 years and 4 months, 35 typically developing children 5 years of age (5TD), and 30 typically developing children 6 years of age (6TD). No difference emerged among the groups in fluid intelligence. Based on a confirmatory factor analysis, two different inhibition factors were identified (response inhibition and interference suppression), and two composite scores were calculated. An ANOVA was then executed with the composite inhibitory scores as dependent variables and group membership as the between-subject variable to explore the group differences in inhibition components. The 6TD group outperformed the 5TD group in both response inhibition and interference suppression component scores. No differences were found in both inhibition components between the DS group and 5TD. In contrast, the 6TD group outperformed the DS group in both response inhibition and in the interference suppression component's scores. Summarizing, our findings show that both response inhibition and interference suppression significantly increased during school transition and that individuals with DS showed a delay in both response inhibition and interference suppression components compared to typically developing 6-year-olds, but their performance was similar to typically developing 5-year-olds.

          Related collections

          Most cited references66

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Executive Functions

          Executive functions (EFs) make possible mentally playing with ideas; taking the time to think before acting; meeting novel, unanticipated challenges; resisting temptations; and staying focused. Core EFs are inhibition [response inhibition (self-control—resisting temptations and resisting acting impulsively) and interference control (selective attention and cognitive inhibition)], working memory, and cognitive flexibility (including creatively thinking “outside the box,” seeing anything from different perspectives, and quickly and flexibly adapting to changed circumstances). The developmental progression and representative measures of each are discussed. Controversies are addressed (e.g., the relation between EFs and fluid intelligence, self-regulation, executive attention, and effortful control, and the relation between working memory and inhibition and attention). The importance of social, emotional, and physical health for cognitive health is discussed because stress, lack of sleep, loneliness, or lack of exercise each impair EFs. That EFs are trainable and can be improved with practice is addressed, including diverse methods tried thus far.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Nature and Organization of Individual Differences in Executive Functions: Four General Conclusions.

            Executive functions (EFs)-a set of general-purpose control processes that regulate one's thoughts and behaviors-have become a popular research topic lately and have been studied in many subdisciplines of psychological science. This article summarizes the EF research that our group has conducted to understand the nature of individual differences in EFs and their cognitive and biological underpinnings. In the context of a new theoretical framework that we have been developing (the unity/diversity framework), we describe four general conclusions that have emerged from our research. Specifically, we argue that individual differences in EFs, as measured with simple laboratory tasks, (1) show both unity and diversity (different EFs are correlated yet separable); (2) reflect substantial genetic contributions; (3) are related to various clinically and societally important phenomena; and (4) show some developmental stability.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The relationship between cognition and action: performance of children 3 1/2-7 years old on a Stroop-like day-night test.

              One hundred and sixty children 3 1/2-7 years of age (10 M, 10 F at each 6-month interval) were tested on a task that requires inhibitory control of action plus learning and remembering two rules. They were asked to say "day" whenever a black card with the moon and stars appeared and to say "night" when shown a white card with a bright sun. Children < 5 years had great difficulty. They started out performing well, but could not sustain this over the course of the 16-trial session. Response latency decreased from 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 years. Children < 4 1/2 years performed well when they took very long to respond. To test whether the requirement to learn and remember two rules alone was sufficient to cause children difficulty, 80 children 3 1/2-5 years old were tested on a control version of the task ("say 'day' to one abstract design and 'night' to another"). Even the youngest children performed at a high level. We conclude that the requirement to learn and remember two rules is not in itself sufficient to account for the poor performance of the younger children in the experimental condition.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Psychol
                Front Psychol
                Front. Psychol.
                Frontiers in Psychology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-1078
                04 May 2018
                2018
                : 9
                : 660
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Education Sciences, University of Genoa , Genoa, Italy
                [2] 2Department of Life Sciences, University of Trieste , Trieste, Italy
                Author notes

                Edited by: Sarah E. MacPherson, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom

                Reviewed by: Miriam Gade, Medical School Berlin, Germany; Robert Reeve, University of Melbourne, Australia

                *Correspondence: Laura Traverso lauratraverso4@ 123456gmail.com
                Maria C. Passolunghi passolu@ 123456units.it

                This article was submitted to Cognition, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

                Article
                10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00660
                5945878
                61fe00a2-dba9-4ce4-84e6-e71b4fed0c41
                Copyright © 2018 Traverso, Fontana, Usai and Passolunghi.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 05 January 2018
                : 16 April 2018
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 5, Equations: 0, References: 93, Pages: 14, Words: 11600
                Categories
                Psychology
                Original Research

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                down syndrome,executive function,inhibition,interference suppression,response inhibition

                Comments

                Comment on this article