Difference and Relationship between Voluntary and Involuntary Inhibition in Elderly and Young Groups

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：23

、訪客IP：18.227.81.161

姓名

亢瓦迪(Condrowati) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

認知與神經科學研究所

論文名稱

(Difference and Relationship between Voluntary and Involuntary Inhibition in Elderly and Young Groups)

相關論文

★ 作業轉換能力之訓練與轉移效果探討	★ 全域型與局部型物體地標對人類空間巡行能力之貢獻
★ 兒童早期至晚期疼痛同理心的神經發展: 事件相關電位研究	★ 同理心老化的認知神經機轉:功能性磁振造影研究
★ 動作參數對於選擇性抑制的影響	★ 社會場景對於護理人員同理心之調控
★ 泛自閉症障礙症候群處理情緒人聲的不典型表現：腦電波研究	★ 即時回饋類型對於雙手協調動作學習之影響
★ Diversity and Commonality of Cognitive Profile among Static, Strategic and Interceptive Sports-Expertise	★ Application of a Brain Computer Interfacing System in Comparing Visual verses Haptic Induction of Motor Imaginary Task
★ An FMRI Investigation of Malleable Numerical Representation	★ 動態照明在辦公環境應用之可行性評估與眼動儀偵測視覺疲勞之研究
★ 以簡單施力作業及重複效應檢驗動作意象與執行之對應關係	★ 年輕與老年族群之控制化與自動化抑制交互影響的行為與事件相關電位特徵
★ 空間性及時間性資訊變化對序列學習影響之探討	★ 運用VGG網絡對靜息態功能性磁振造影成分圖進行區分

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

抑制是一種核心的執行功能，並且在理論上可區分為自主和非自主兩種類型。自主抑制需要有意識的過程和主動抑制，而非自主抑制則是在無意識的情況下進行並且不能主動發起。本研究的目的是在評估自主抑制和非自主抑制在老年與年輕組間的表現差異，以及兩類抑制彼此間之關係與老化關聯性。所有受試者（年輕人：21.9±1.14歲，N = 41;老年人：66±5.45歲，N = 41）完成了自主（停止訊號作業和執行／不執行作業）和非自主（負向促發作業和回向抑制作業）的任務。結果顯示年輕組的停止信號反應時間較短，並在go-go與no go-go 反應時間之間的差異較大，這表示自主抑制機制的表現較強。而相反的，NP和IOR的效應在年齡組之間並沒有顯著差異。此外，所有的抑制作用之間的相關分析結果顯示年輕人的自主和非自主任務之間的相關性較弱，而老年組則沒有相關性。進一步分析反應時間分布結果發現，老年與年輕組相比顯示出較慢的集中趨勢(central tendency)、有較大的變異數和較高的右尾度 (right-tailedness)。總結來看，本研究結果顯示自主抑制比非自主抑制對老化更敏感，並且對認知老化的去分化理論(De-differentiation Theory)提出質疑。

關鍵詞：自主和非自主抑制；認知老化；反應時間分布分析

摘要(英)

Inhibition is a core executive function and can be theoretically categorized into voluntary and involuntary. Whereas voluntary inhibition requires conscious process and active suppression, involuntary inhibition proceeds unconsciously and cannot be actively initiated. The aims of the current study were to assess the age difference and relationship between voluntary and involuntary inhibition across age groups. All participants (young: 21.9±1.14 yrs, N= 41; elderly: 66±5.45 yrs, N= 41) completed voluntary (Stop Signal and Go/NoGo) and involuntary (Negative Priming and Inhibition of Return) tasks. The results revealed that the young group had shorter stop-signal RT and larger difference between go-go and nogo-go RT, indicating stronger manifestation of voluntary inhibitory mechanism. In contrast, there was no significant difference between age groups in NP and IOR effects. In addition, the results of the correlations across inhibitory effects of all inhibitory tasks showed weak correlation between voluntary and involuntary tasks in the young but no correlation in the elderly group. Further analysis on RT distributions revealed that the elderly group showed slower central tendency, larger variance, and higher extent of right-tailedness than the young group. Taken together, the results suggested that voluntary inhibition is more sensitive to aging than involuntary inhibition, and raised questions about the scope of the de-differentiation theory of cognitive aging.

Keywords: voluntary and involuntary inhibition; cognitive aging; distribution analysis of reaction time

關鍵字(中)

★ 自主和非自主抑制
★ 認知老化
★ 反應時間分布分析

關鍵字(英)

★ voluntary and involuntary inhibition
★ cognitive aging
★ distribution analysis of reaction time

論文目次

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT i
摘要 ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
LIST OF FIGURES v
LIST OF TABLE vii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Voluntary and Involuntary Inhibition 1
1.2 Experimental Paradigms in Voluntary and Involuntary Inhibition 2
1.3 Impact of Aging in Inhibition 5
1.4 Distributional Analysis of Reaction Time 8
1.5 Aims of Current Study 9
CHAPTER 2 METHOD 11
2.1 Participants 11
2.2 Apparatus 11
2.3 Tasks 12
2.3.1 Stop Signal Task 12
2.3.2 Go/NoGo Task 13
2.3.3 Negative Priming Task 14
2.3.4 Inhibition of Return Task 15
2.4 Procedures 16
2.5 Dependent Measures and Data Analyses 17
2.5.1 Stop signal task 17
2.5.2 Go/NoGo task 18
2.5.3 Negative priming task 18
2.5.4 Inhibition of return task 18
2.5.5 Relationship between voluntary and involuntary inhibition 18
2.5.6 Analysis of response time distribution using Ex-Gaussian approach 19
2.6 Hypotheses 19
CHAPTER 3 RESULTS 21
3.1 Age differences in performance of voluntary and involuntary inhibition 21
3.1.1 Age difference in voluntary inhibition 21
3.1.2 Age difference in involuntary inhibition 26
3.2 Relationship between voluntary and involuntary inhibition 30
3.3 Distributional Analyses on RT Performance 37
3.3.1 Age difference in mu, tau, and sigma of the Go/NoGo task 37
3.3.2 Age difference in mu, tau, and sigma of the IOR task 40
3.3.3 Age difference in mu, tau, and sigma of the NP task 42
CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION 46
4.1 Age difference in performance in voluntary and involuntary inhibition 46
4.2 Relationships between voluntary and involuntary inhibition 49
4.3 Ex-Gaussian distributions across groups in response time performance 52
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS 54
REFERENCES 55

參考文獻

Andrés, P., Guerrini, C., Phillips, L., & Perfect, T. J. (2008). Differential Effects of Aging on Executive and Automatic Inhibition, 33.
Aron, A. R. (2007). The Neural Basis of Inhibition in Cognitive Control, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858407299288
Balota, D. A., & Yap, M. J. (2011). Moving Beyond the Mean in Studies of Mental Chronometry : The Power of Response Time Distributional Analyses. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411408885
Bargh, J. A., Schwader, K. L., Hailey, S. E., Dyer, R. L., & Boothby, E. J. (2012). Automaticity in social-cognitive processes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(12), 593–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.10.002
Bedard, A., Nichols, S., Jose, A., Schachar, R., & Logan, G. D. (2010). Developmental Neuropsychology The Development of Selective Inhibitory Control Across the Life Span, (February 2013), 37–41.
Bell-mcginty, S., Podell, K., Franzen, M., Baird, A. D., & Williams, M. J. (2002). Standard measures of executive function in predicting instrumental activities of daily living in older adults, (January), 828–834.
Blazer, D., Yaffe, K., & Liverman, C. (2015). COGNITIVE.
Carrasco, M. (2012). Visual attention : The past 25 years, 51(13), 1484–1525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2011.04.012.Visual
Chambers, C. D., Garavan, H., & Bellgrove, M. A. (2009). Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Insights into the neural basis of response inhibition from cognitive and clinical neuroscience, 33, 631–646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.08.016
Chang, E., & Ro, T. (2005). Inhibition of return in perception and action, 12(3), 443–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280444000391
College, E., Logan, G. D., Cowan, W. B., & Davis, K. A. (1984). On the Ability to Inhibit Simple and Choice Reaction Time Responses : A Model and a Method, 10(2), 276–291.
Dawson, M. R. W. (1988). Fitting the ex-Gaussian equation to reaction time distributions ( J }, 20, 54–57.
Diamond, A. (2012). Executive Functions. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750
Dienes, Z. (2000). A theory of implicit and explicit knowledge, (1999), 735–808.
Garavan, H., Ross, T., & Stein, E. (1999). Right hemispheric dominance of inhibitory control : An event-related functional MRI study, 96(July), 8301–8306.
Gu, S. H., Gau, S. S., Tzang, S., & Hsu, W. (2013). Research in Developmental Disabilities The ex-Gaussian distribution of reaction times in adolescents with attention-deficit / hyperactivity disorder. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(11), 3709–3719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2013.07.025
Hartley, A. A., Kieley, J. M., Dean, D., Liegler, K., Lucas, L., Teal, J., & Wurtz, S. (1995). Adult Age Differences in the Inhibition of Return of Visual Attention, 10(4), 670–683.
Hasher, L., Zacks, R., & May, C. P. (1999). Inhibitory control , circadian arousal and age, (January 1999).
Heathcote, A., Popiel, S., & Mewhort, D. (1991). Analysis of Response Time Distributions : An Example Using the Stroop Task, 109(2), 340–347.
Hockley, W. E. (1984). Analysis of Response Time Distributions in the Study of Cognitive Processes, 10(4), 598–615.
Kail, R., & Salthouse, T. A. (1994). acta psychologica speed as a mental capacity, 86, 199–225.
Katsuki, F., & Constantinidis, C. (2013). Neuroscientist, (December). https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858413514136
Khng, K. H., & Lee, K. (2014). The Relationship between Stroop and Stop-Signal Measures of Inhibition in Adolescents : Influences from Variations in Context and Measure Estimation, 9(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101356
Klein, P., Petitjean, C., Olivier, E., & Duque, J. (2014). NeuroImage Top-down suppression of incompatible motor activations during response selection under con fl ict. NeuroImage, 86, 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.08.005
Kramer, A. F., Humphrey, D. G., Larish, J. E., Logan, G. D., & Strayer, D. L. (1994). Aging and Inhibition : Beyond a Unitary View of Inhibitory Processing in Attention, 9(4), 491–512.
Kray, J., Kipp, K. H., & Karbach, J. (2009). Acta Psychologica The development of selective inhibitory control : The influence of verbal labeling. Acta Psychologica, 130(1), 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.10.006
Leij, A. R. Van Der, Sligte, I. G., Lamme, V. A. F., & Scholte, H. S. (2013). Bottom-up and top-down attention are independent Yair Pinto, 13, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1167/13.3.16.doi
Livesey, D., Keen, J., Rouse, J., & White, F. (2006). The relationship between measures of executive function , motor performance and externalising behaviour in 5- and 6-year-old children ଝ, 25, 50–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2005.10.008
Luck, Steven & Gaspelin, Ni. (2018). HHS Public Access, 1(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.28.
Lupiáñez, J. (2012). Inhibition of return, (January 2012). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof
Mackie, M., Dam, N., & Fan, J. (2014). NIH Public Access, 82(3), 301–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2013.05.004.Cognitive
Mcauley, T., Yap, M., Christ, S. E., & White, D. A. (2006). Revisiting Inhibitory Control Across the Life Span : Insights From the Ex-Gaussian Distribution Revisiting Inhibitory Control Across the Life Span : Insights From the Ex-Gaussian Distribution, (February). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326942dn2903
Mcdowd, J. M. (1997). Inhibition in Attention and Aging, 52(6), 265–273.
Mcdowd, J. M., & Oseas-kreger, D. M. (1991). Aging , Inhibitory Processes , and Negative Priming, 46(6).
Morasch, K. C., & Bell, M. A. (2012). Expressions of Toddler Executive Function, 108(3), 593–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.07.003.The
Murman, D. L. (2015). The Impact of Age on Cognition, (1).
Myerson, J., Robertson, S., & Hale, S. (2007). Aging and Intraindividual Variability in Performance : Analyses of Response Time Distributions, (December 2007). https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2007.88-319
Nigg, J. T. (2000). On Inhibition / Disinhibition in Developmental Psychopathology : Views From Cognitive and Personality Psychology and a Working Inhibition Taxonomy, 126(2), 220–246. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.126.2.220
Posner, M., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of visual orienting, (May).
Rey-mermet, A., & Gade, M. (2018). Inhibition in aging : What is preserved ? What declines ? A meta-analysis, 1695–1716. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1384-7
Roberts, Fillmore, & M. (2012). NIH Public Access, 120(1), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021408.Separating
Rush, B. et al. (2006). Accounting for Cognitive Aging : Context Processing , Inhibition or Processing, 588–610. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825580600680703
Schlaghecken, F., & Sisman, R. (2006). Low-level motor inhibition in children : Evidence from the negative compatibility effect, 2(1), 7–19.
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory, (December). https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.127
Stern, Y. (2019). What is cognitive reserve ? Theory and research application of the reserve concept, (2002), 448–460.
Sullivan, M. P., Faust, M. E., & Balota, D. A. (1995). Identity Negative Priming in Older Adults and Individuals With Dementia of the Alzheimer Type, 9(4), 537–555.
Tipper, S. P. (1985). The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A : Human Experimental Psychology The negative priming effect : Inhibitory priming by ignored objects, (June 2014), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748508400920
Tipper, S. P. (1991). Less attentional selectivity as a result of declining inhibition in older adults, 29(1), 45–47.
Verbruggen, F., & Logan, G. D. (2009). NIH Public Access, 12(11), 418–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.005.Response
Verbruggen, F., Logan, G. D., & Stevens, M. (2008). STOP-IT : Windows executable software for the stop-signal paradigm, 40(2), 479–483. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.2.479
Williams, B. R., Ponesse, J. S., Schachar, R. J., Logan, G. D., & Tannock, R. (1999). Development of Inhibitory Control Across the Life Span, 35(1), 205–213.
Wilson, S. P., & Kipp, K. (1998). The Development of Efficient Inhibition : Evidence from Directed-Forgetting Tasks, 123(18), 86–123.
Zacks, Hasher, & Li. 2000. The handbook of aging and cognition (pp. 293–343).
Zanto, T. P., & Gazzaley, A. (2010). At tention and ageing.

指導教授

張智宏(Erik Chihhung Chang)

審核日期

2019-7-23

推文