Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Resistance to distractor inhibition tasks have previously revealed impairments in children with autism. However, on the classic Stroop task and other prepotent response tasks, children with autism show intact inhibition. These data may reflect a distinction between prepotent response and resistance to distractor inhibition. The current study investigated this possibility using tasks that systematically manipulated inhibitory load. Findings showed that children with autism performed comparably to typically developing and learning disabled controls on a prepotent response inhibition stop-signal task but showed significant inhibitory impairment on a modified flanker resistence to distractor inhibition task. Although the results are clearly consistent with the suggestion that autism is associated with a specific deficit in resistance to distractor inhibition, they may in fact be related to an increased perceptual capacity in autism.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Christ, S. E., Kester, L. E., Bodner, K., & Miles, J. H. (in press). Evidence for selective inhibitory impairment in individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Neuropsychology.
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Behavior, 19, 450–466. CrossRef
Dempster, F. (1992). The rise and fall of the inhibitory mechanism: Toward a unified theory of cognitive development and aging. Developmental Review, 12, 45–75. CrossRef
Dempster, F. N. (1993). Resistance to interference: Developmental changes in a basic processing dimension. In M. L. Howe & R. Pasnak (Eds.), Emerging themes in cognitive development. Vol. 1: Foundations (pp. 3–27). New York: Springer. CrossRef
Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon identification of a target letter in a non search task. Perception and Psychophysics, 16, 143–149. CrossRef
Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2004). The relations among inhibition and interference control functions: A latent variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 101–135. CrossRef
Garavan, H., Ross, T. J., & Stein, E. A. (1999). Right hemispheric dominance of inhibitory control: An event-related functional MRI study. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96, 8301–8306. CrossRef
Geurts, H., Luman, M., & van Meel, C. S. (2008). What’s in a game: The effect of social motivation on interference control in boys with ADHD and autism spectrum disorders. Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 848–857. CrossRef
Harnishfeger, K. K. (1995). The development of cognitive inhibition: Theories, definitions, and research evidence. In F. N. Dempster & C. J. Brainerd (Eds.), Interference and inhibition in cognition (pp. 175–204). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. CrossRef
Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1988). Working memory, comprehension, and aging: A review and a new view. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 22, pp. 193–225). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hill, E. L. (2004). Evaluating the theory of executive dysfunction in autism. Developmental Review, 24, 189–233. CrossRef
Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R. A., & Engle, R. W. (2001). A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 169–183. CrossRef
Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1990). Coloured progressive matrices. Oxford: Oxford Psychologists Press.
Rutter, M., Bailey, A., & Lord, C. (2003). The social communication questionnaire. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Shallice, T. (1988). From neuropsychology to mental structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Wegner, D. M., & Zanakos, S. (1994). Chronic thought suppression. Journal of Personality, 62, 615–640. CrossRef
- Inhibition in Autism: Children with Autism have Difficulty Inhibiting Irrelevant Distractors but not Prepotent Responses
Nena C. Adams
- Springer US