Elsevier

Clinical Psychology Review

Volume 44, March 2016, Pages 94-111
Clinical Psychology Review

The interaction between reinforcement and inhibitory control in ADHD: A review and research guidelines

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2016.01.001Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Qualitative and quantitative approaches were used to review reinforcement × inhibition interactions in children and adolescents with ADHD and controls.

  • Meta-analyses show that reinforcement normalized inhibition in children and adolescents with ADHD to the baseline level of controls.

  • Potential factors contributing to the reinforcement effects include the reinforcement schedules and the type of reinforcement.

  • Future behavioral and neuroimaging research will help elucidate this interaction further.

Abstract

The majority of studies which have aimed to identify cognitive and motivational factors at play in ADHD have investigated cognitive-control processes and reinforcement effects in isolation. Notably, in recent years, the interaction between these two processes has been increasingly examined. Here, we aimed to provide a comprehensive and critical review of the behavioral and functional neuroimaging studies that have investigated reinforcement effects on inhibitory control in ADHD. The findings of our meta-analyses show that reinforcement can normalize inhibitory control in children and adolescents with ADHD to the baseline level of controls. Furthermore, the data suggests that inhibitory control may improve to a larger extent in youth with ADHD compared with controls, as a function of reinforcement. Based on (1) this review and meta-analyses, (2) functional neuroimaging studies in healthy populations, and (3) existing ADHD and neurobiological models of dual processes, we propose specific guidelines for future research, which are anticipated to further elucidate processes underlying impulsive behavior associated with ADHD.

Introduction

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common child and adolescent developmental disorder with prevalence rates of 5–10% (Scahill & Schwab-Stone, 2000). ADHD is mainly characterized by age-inappropriately high levels of inattention and/or impulsivity and hyperactivity. Three symptomatic subtypes are currently distinguished: ADHD-inattentive subtype, ADHD-hyperactive/impulsive subtype, and ADHD-combined subtype (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).

Theoretical causal models of ADHD have suggested that deficits in inhibitory control lead to secondary impairments in other cognitive-control functions, resulting in inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity (Barkley, 1997). This theory has triggered a burgeoning literature of behavioral and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies. Findings indicate that ADHD is indeed associated with poor cognitive control, particularly inhibitory control as measured with the stop task (Chamberlain et al., 2011, Lijffijt et al., 2005, Lipszyc and Schachar, 2010, Logan et al., 1997, Logan and Sergeant, 1998, Willcutt et al., 2005). Generally, individuals with ADHD have slower stop signal reaction times (SSRT), suggesting that it takes them longer to inhibit prepotent responses. The inhibitory deficit in ADHD is associated with both structural and functional abnormalities in fronto-striatal and fronto-parietal neural circuitries often revealing hypoactivation in prefrontal areas during stop or go/no-go tasks as compared to typical populations (Castellanos and Proal, 2012, Cortese et al., 2012, De La Fuente et al., 2013, Hart et al., 2013, Paloyelis et al., 2007, Valera et al., 2007, Valera and Seidman, 2005). Despite the established relation between ADHD and cognitive control deficits, meta-analyses have shown that effect sizes are small to moderate: poor inhibitory control is typical of only 50% of all patients with ADHD (Logan and Sergeant, 1998, van Mourik et al., 2005, Nigg et al., 2005, Willcutt et al., 2005).

In addition to impairments in cognitive control, altered reinforcement sensitivity is considered one of the important deficits in ADHD (Castellanos et al., 2006, Castellanos and Tannock, 2002, Douglas and Parry, 1994, Sonuga-Barke, 2002, Sonuga-Barke, 2003, Sonuga-Barke, 2005, Sonuga-Barke and Fairchild, 2012, Tripp and Wickens, 2012). Reinforcement sensitivity may be defined as a tendency that varies across individuals and is often measured with questionnaires. As such, it is assumed that higher levels of reward sensitivity will be correlated with larger benefits in task performance when this is reinforced with rewards (Luman, van Meel, Oosterlaan & Geurts, 2012). Importantly, Fosco, Hawk, Rosch, and Bubnik (2015) tested this assumption and demonstrated that higher questionnaire-based reward sensitivity is indeed associated with larger increases in task performance when it is rewarded compared to when it is not rewarded. Research using questionnaire-based measures of reinforcement sensitivity has demonstrated that indeed, children and adolescents with ADHD are more sensitive to rewards than controls (Fosco et al., 2015, Luman et al., 2012). However, in experimental research, findings are less conclusive: while there is some evidence that the positive effects of reinforcers on task performance are stronger in those with ADHD than controls, psychophysiological research suggests decreased reinforcement sensitivity at that level of analysis in individuals with ADHD (see Luman et al. (2005) for a review).

A more consistent finding of altered reinforcement sensitivity in ADHD is a relatively strong preference for small immediate rewards compared to larger delayed rewards (Antrop et al., 2006, Barkley et al., 2001, Bitsakou et al., 2009, Demurie et al., 2012, Luman et al., 2005, Marco et al., 2009, Scheres et al., 2010, Sergeant, 2000, Shiels et al., 2009, Solanto et al., 2001, Sonuga-Barke et al., 1992, Tripp and Alsop, 2001, Wilson et al., 2011 but also see Plichta et al., 2009, Scheres et al., 2006, Solanto et al., 2007, Wilbertz et al., 2013). In terms of brain activation during choices between small immediate and larger delayed rewards, only two studies have been published so far (Plichta et al., 2009, Rubia et al., 2009a). Plichta et al. (2009) showed ventral striatal hypoactivation in adults with ADHD while deciding between smaller sooner and larger later reward options. Additionally, they reported hyperactivation of the dorsal caudate nucleus and amygdala in those with ADHD when the soon option was not immediate. These findings suggest reduced neural reward processing in individuals with ADHD, and are consistent with the delay aversion theory (Sonuga-Barke et al., 1992). The second study (Fabiano et al., 2009) found that preferences for small immediate rewards were correlated with hyperactivity symptoms. When contrasting delayed vs. immediate choices, adults with ADHD showed hypoactivation in orbital and inferior prefrontal cortices, putamen, thalamus, inferior parietal lobe, posterior cingulate/precuneus, and cerebellum. Given the involvement of these regions in other processes including temporal processes (e.g. temporal discounting), inhibition, and attention, Rubia, Halari, Christakou et al. (2009) suggested that a combination of such skills and abilities is needed to wait for large delayed rewards, and that these may be compromised in ADHD.

Secondly, a recent meta-analysis (Plichta & Scheres, 2014; but see von Rhein et al., 2015, Plichta and Scheres, 2014) of functional MRI studies has revealed medium-sized hypoactivation of the ventral striatum during anticipation of potential monetary reward in adolescents and adults with ADHD as measured with the monetary incentive delay (MID) task (Knutson, Westdorp, Kaiser, & Hommer, 2000). In contrast, there are very few fMRI studies on reward outcome in relation to ADHD (Paloyelis et al., 2012, Strohle et al., 2008, Wilbertz et al., 2012). These findings are interesting though mixed regarding the role of ventral striatum and orbitofrontal cortex during reward outcome in individuals (adolescents and adults) with ADHD. More research is needed to determine the relation between ADHD and reward outcome processing at different developmental stages, and studies examining both anticipation and outcome of rewards within the same paradigm and sample are of particular interest (see von Rhein et al., 2015).

Taken together, although ADHD is marked by heterogeneity and multiple mechanisms are involved, there is accumulating evidence supporting the notion of altered reinforcement effects in ADHD. Additionally, a link between ADHD and inhibitory control deficits had already been established. The importance of both processes in ADHD is reflected in the roles both play in behavioral interventions: desired behaviors (including inhibitory control) are often trained by the use of reinforcers (Antshel et al., 2011, Daley et al., 2014, DuPaul and Stoner, 2014, Fabiano et al., 2009a). Together, altered reinforcement effects and inhibitory control deficits may form one of the fundamental mechanisms for the diversity of ADHD symptoms.

Inhibitory control and reinforcement effects can be studied in isolation as has been done in the majority of the studies described above. However, goal directed behavior often involves aiming to achieve a positive outcome (reward) or avoiding a negative outcome (e.g. punishment) in daily life situations. Therefore, reinforcement may be expected to play a vital role in inhibitory control, requiring adequate integration of these two functions in order to serve appropriate goal directed behavior. For example, a child may be required to pay attention during a school lecture and inhibit the temptation to talk to friends during to get better grades. In this example, reward (getting good grades) increases the likelihood of someone to demonstrate cognitive control (in this case, inhibition of interacting with friends). Thus, one way in which reinforcement can interact with cognitive control is that incentives lead to behavioral improvements (ameliorating effects). Another, much less frequently studied manner in which reinforcement and inhibitory control interact is in the opposite way, i.e., reinforcement may impair inhibitory control. Specifically, stimuli or responses to stimuli that have resulted in a reward or the avoidance of punishment will be harder to avoid or inhibit than (responses to) stimuli that have not been associated with reinforcement. For example, a child may find it more difficult to stop being the class clown if his/her behavior resulted in the approval of peers than if it did not. The impairing effects of reinforcement or motivational significance on cognitive control and its neural correlates have been classified as “hot” forms of cognitive control by Metcalfe and Mischel (1999) and later fine-tuned by Zelazo and Müller (2002). This is in contrast to a “cool” form of cognitive control which is purely abstract, such as measured by the stop task (Logan et al., 1997).

Given that reinforcement plays an important role in inhibitory control in various ways, it is encouraging that the combination of inhibitory control and reinforcement has been increasingly incorporated in theoretical models of multiple causal mechanisms of ADHD (Castellanos and Tannock, 2002, Nigg, 2003, Nigg and Casey, 2005, Nigg et al., 2005, Sagvolden et al., 2005b, Sonuga-Barke et al., 2010, Sonuga-Barke, 2002, Sonuga-Barke, 2003, Sonuga-Barke, 2005). Specifically, the dual-pathway model suggests an impaired dorsolateral cortical-striatal brain circuitry to be associated with (cool) cognitive control impairments, whereas dysfunctions in the medial and orbital prefrontal-ventral striatal circuits are linked to altered reinforcement sensitivity. Although earlier versions of this model primarily viewed these pathways as independent, more recently, Sonuga-Barke, Sergeant, Nigg, and Willcutt (2008) proposed that cognitive control and reinforcement interact, despite the fact that strong preferences for immediate rewards and poor cognitive control are distinguishable to some extent in their relation to ADHD (Solanto et al., 2001). Thus, ADHD has progressively come to be viewed as a multi-systemic disorder with diverse neuropsychological profiles (i.e. altered reinforcement effects, and/or inhibitory/cognitive control deficits) (Nigg and Casey, 2005, Sonuga-Barke et al., 2010, de Zeeuw et al., 2012).

Nonetheless, empirical studies examining the conjunction of reinforcement and inhibitory control pathways in ADHD are still sparse. Although a number of behavioral studies have examined the ameliorating effects of reinforcement on inhibition, impairing effects of reinforcement on inhibitory control have only been investigated in ADHD in one study (Wodka et al., 2007). Additionally, functional neuroimaging studies on the integration of reinforcement and cognitive control have only just started and are limited to the ameliorating effects of reinforcement on cognitive control. We argue that more research is needed in which the integration between these two processes is examined in individuals with ADHD, because more variance in the symptoms of ADHD may be explained when measuring the conjunction of these two important functions than when measuring each in isolation.

Section snippets

Approach

While other executive functions are impaired in ADHD as well, inhibitory control deficits have been shown to most robustly differentiate individuals with ADHD from controls (e.g., Willcutt et al., 2005). For this reason, as well as for the sake of brevity, the focus of this review will be on the integration of inhibitory control and altered reinforcement effects. We will (a) provide a comprehensive qualitative review of behavioral studies in which the interaction between these was measured. We

A comparison of methodological details

All studies in this review included non-medicated, clinically diagnosed children and adolescents with ADHD and healthy control groups in the age range of 6–18 years. To our knowledge, there were no studies with adult ADHD groups. The main dependent variables for response inhibition are SSRT for the stop task, and false alarm rate (proportion of no-go trials to which a participant responded) for the go/no-go task. As for response execution, mean reaction time (RT) and RT variability are the main

Functional neuroimaging research

Neuroimaging techniques can be applied to provide insight into the neural correlates associated with reinforcement and inhibition interactions. However, to our knowledge, there are no functional neuroimaging studies on how reward affects inhibition directly in ADHD. Nonetheless, there are two studies in which such effects were addressed indirectly, the findings of which will be discussed here. Secondly, in order to set up guidelines for future functional neuroimaging research in individuals

Theoretical models: implications for studying the integration of reinforcement and cognitive control in ADHD

In this section we will briefly describe 3 theoretical models of ADHD and some of their implications for future behavioral work on inhibition–reinforcement interactions in ADHD. Next, we will briefly describe 3 neurobiological models on the integration of reinforcement and cognitive control, and how these may aid in the formulation of neural hypotheses for future functional neuroimaging ADHD studies.

Disorder specificity

It should be noted that hot cognitive control abnormalities in ADHD may be associated with comorbid behavioral disorders such as oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder. This notion arises from studies that have employed a rewarded continuous performance task (a rewarded sustained attention task) combined with fMRI (Rubia, Smith et al., 2009). Here, the rewarded target trials were contrasted against the neutral target trials and abnormal activation of orbital frontal areas was only

Conclusion

Reinforcement and cognitive control interactions reflect daily life conditions and this interplay is increasingly studied in typically developing populations as well as in psychiatric disorders. The current review and meta-analyses demonstrated that youth with ADHD benefited more from reinforcement contingencies than healthy controls on inhibitory control tasks. Meta-analyses further demonstrated that youth with ADHD may normalize inhibitory control during reinforcement to the baseline

Author disclosure

This work was supported by a VIDI grant, project number 016.105.363, of The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) to AS. The authors have no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a VIDI grant, project number 016.105.363, of The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) to AS.

References (142)

  • M.J. Groom et al.

    Effects of motivation and medication on electrophysiological markers of response inhibition in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

    Biological Psychiatry

    (2010)
  • S.N. Haber

    The primate basal ganglia: parallel and integrative networks

    Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy

    (2003)
  • B. Knutson et al.

    FMRI visualization of brain activity during a monetary incentive delay task

    NeuroImage

    (2000)
  • K. Krauel et al.

    Impact of emotional salience on episodic memory in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study

    Biological Psychiatry

    (2007)
  • C. Liston et al.

    Atypical prefrontal connectivity in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: pathway to disease or pathological end point?

    Biological Psychiatry

    (2011)
  • M. Luman et al.

    The impact of reinforcement contingencies on AD/HD: a review and theoretical appraisal

    Clinical Psychology Review

    (2005)
  • J.T. Nigg et al.

    Causal heterogeneity in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: do we need neuropsychologically impaired subtypes?

    Biological Psychiatry

    (2005)
  • S. Padmala et al.

    Interactions between cognition and motivation during response inhibition

    Neuropsychologia

    (2010)
  • A. Padmanabhan et al.

    Developmental changes in brain function underlying the influence of reward processing on inhibitory control

    Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience

    (2011)
  • L. Pessoa

    How do emotion and motivation direct executive control?

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences

    (2009)
  • J.H. Pfeifer et al.

    Arrested development? Reconsidering dual-systems models of brain function in adolescence and disorders

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences

    (2012)
  • M.M. Plichta et al.

    Ventral–striatal responsiveness during reward anticipation in ADHD and its relation to trait impulsivity in the healthy population: a meta-analytic review of the fMRI literature

    Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews

    (2014)
  • M.M. Plichta et al.

    Neural hyporesponsiveness and hyperresponsiveness during immediate and delayed reward processing in adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

    Biological Psychiatry

    (2009)
  • T.W. Robbins et al.

    Neurocognitive endophenotypes of impulsivity and compulsivity: towards dimensional psychiatry

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences

    (2012)
  • K. Rubia et al.

    Methylphenidate normalises activation and functional connectivity deficits in attention and motivation networks in medication-naive children with ADHD during a rewarded continuous performance task

    Neuropharmacology

    (2009)
  • L. Scahill et al.

    Epidemiology of ADHD in school-age children

    Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America

    (2000)
  • A. Scheres et al.

    Temporal and probabilistic discounting of rewards in children and adolescents: effects of age and ADHD symptoms

    Neuropsychologia

    (2006)
  • E. Aarts et al.

    Striatal dopamine and the interface between motivation and cognition

    Frontiers in Psychology

    (2011)
  • I. Antrop et al.

    ADHD and delay aversion: the influence of non-temporal stimulation on choice for delayed rewards

    Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry

    (2006)
  • K.M. Antshel et al.

    Advances in understanding and treating ADHD

    BMC Medicine

    (2011)
  • American Psychiatric Association

    Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders

    (2013)
  • A.R. Aron et al.

    Stop-signal inhibition disrupted by damage to right inferior frontal gyrus in humans

    Nature Neuroscience

    (2003)
  • R.A. Barkley

    Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions: constructing a unifying theory of ADHD

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1997)
  • R.A. Barkley et al.

    Executive functioning, temporal discounting, and sense of time in adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD)

    Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology

    (2001)
  • J.C. Bledsoe et al.

    Anterior cingulate cortex and symptom severity in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

    Journal of Abnormal Psychology

    (2013)
  • D. Brevers et al.

    Impulsive action but not impulsive choice determines problem gambling severity

    PloS One

    (2012)
  • M.G. Bubnik et al.

    Reinforcement enhances vigilance among children with ADHD: comparisons to typically developing children and to the effects of methylphenidate

    Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology

    (2015)
  • B.J. Casey et al.

    The adolescent brain

    Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

    (2008)
  • F.X. Castellanos et al.

    Quantitative morphology of the caudate nucleus in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

    American Journal of Psychiatry

    (1994)
  • F.X. Castellanos et al.

    Neuroscience of attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder: the search for endophenotypes

    Nature Reviews. Neuroscience

    (2002)
  • K.S. Chiew et al.

    Positive affect versus reward: emotional and motivational influences on cognitive control

    Frontiers in Psychology

    (2011)
  • J. Cohen

    Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences

    (1988)
  • S. Cortese et al.

    Toward systems neuroscience of ADHD: a meta-analysis of 55 fMRI studies

    American Journal of Psychiatry

    (2012)
  • E.A. Crone et al.

    Understanding adolescence as a period of social–affective engagement and goal flexibility

    Nature Reviews Neuroscience

    (2012)
  • D. Daley et al.

    Behavioral interventions in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials across multiple outcome domains

    Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

    (2014)
  • A. De La Fuente et al.

    A review of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder from the perspective of brain networks

    Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

    (2013)
  • E. de Water et al.

    Distinct age-related differences in temporal Discounting and Risk Taking in Adolescents and Young Adults

    Child Development

    (2014)
  • P. de Zeeuw et al.

    Deficits in cognitive control, timing and reward sensitivity appear to be dissociable in ADHD

    PloS One

    (2012)
  • E. Demurie et al.

    Common alterations in sensitivity to type but not amount of reward in ADHD and autism spectrum disorders

    Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry

    (2011)
  • E. Demurie et al.

    Temporal discounting of monetary rewards in children and adolescents with ADHD and autism spectrum disorders

    Developmental Science

    (2012)
  • Cited by (39)

    • Event rate effects on children with attention-deficit/hyperactive disorder: Test predictions from the moderate brain arousal model and the neuro-energetics theory using the diffusion decision model

      2022, Research in Developmental Disabilities
      Citation Excerpt :

      Attention-deficit/hyperactive disorder (ADHD) is a neuropsychiatric disorder characterised by impulsive, hyperactive, and inattentive symptoms that lead to social and academic impairments (Thomas et al., 2015). Extensive research has been conducted on the disinhibition reaction of children with ADHD, and the mean reaction time (MRT) and error rate have been widely used as indicators of high-order inhibition control (Barkley, 1997; Chmielewski et al., 2019; Ma et al., 2016). Compared with typical developmental children (TDC), children with ADHD showed more variability, performed worse, had longer MRT, and made more mistakes (Metin & Krebs, 2015a; Metin et al., 2012; Pievsky & McGrath, 2018).

    • Exposure to ambient air pollution and executive function among Chinese primary schoolchildren

      2020, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health
      Citation Excerpt :

      Inhibitory control, another key component of executive function, regulates the self-control of resisting temptations and acting impulsively, and selective attention (Diamond and Ling, 2016). Impaired inhibitory control has been related to several mental health problems such as addictive behaviors (Jentsch and Pennington, 2014) or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (Ma et al., 2016). In this study, PM2.5 exposure was associated with higher time interference score in the Stroop test.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text