Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T19:15:17.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An event-related potential investigation of deficient inhibitory control in individuals with pathological Internet use

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2014

Zhen-He Zhou ,
Guo-Zhen Yuan ,
Jian-Jun Yao ,
Cui Li  and
Zao-Huo Cheng
Zhen-He Zhou
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Wuxi Mental Health Center of Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi 214151, China
Guo-Zhen Yuan
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Wuxi Mental Health Center of Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi 214151, China
Jian-Jun Yao
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Wuxi Mental Health Center of Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi 214151, China
Cui Li
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Wuxi Mental Health Center of Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi 214151, China
Zao-Huo Cheng*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Wuxi Mental Health Center of Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi 214151, China
*
Professor Zao-huo Cheng, Department of Psychiatry, Wuxi Mental Health Center of Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi 214151, China. Tel: +86 510 13358118986; Fax: +86 510 83015825; E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Zhou Z-H, Yuan G-Z, Yao J-J, Li C, Cheng Z-H. An event-related potential investigation of deficient inhibitory control in individuals with pathological Internet use.

Objective:

The purpose of this study was to investigate deficient inhibitory control in individuals with pathological Internet use (PIU) using a visual go/no-go task by event-related potentials (ERPs).

Methods:

Subjects were 26 individuals with PIU and 26 controls. Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11 (BIS-11) was used for measures of impulsivity. A go/no-go task involved eight different two-digit numerical stimuli. The response window was 1000 ms and the inter-trial-interval (ITI) was 1500 ms. Electroencephalography (EEG) was recorded when participants performed the task. Brain electrical source analysis (BESA) 5.2.0 was used to perform data analysis and the no-go N2 amplitude was analysed for investigation of inhibitory control.

Results:

BIS-11 total scores, attentional key and motor key scores in PIU group were higher than that of the control group. In the go/no-go task, false alarm rate of PIU group was higher, and hit rate was lower than that of the control group. A repeated measure ANOVA revealed a significant group, frontal electrode sites and group × frontal electrode sites main effect for N2 amplitudes of no-go conditions (for group: F = 3953, df = 1, p = 0.000; for frontal electrode sites: F = 541, df = 9, p = 0.000; for group × frontal electrode sites: F = 306, df = 9, p = 0.000), and a significant group, central electrode sites and group × central electrode sites main effect for N2 amplitudes of no-go conditions (for group: F = 9074, df = 1, p = 0.000; for central electrode sites: F = 163, df = 2, p = 0.000; for group × central electrode sites: F = 73, df = 2, p = 0.000). N2 amplitudes of no-go conditions were lower than those at control group.

Conclusions:

Individuals with PIU were more impulsive than controls and shared neuropsychological and ERPs characteristics of compulsive-impulsive spectrum disorder, which supports that PIU is an impulse disorder or at least related to impulse control disorder.

Keywords

a go/no-go taskBarratt Impulsiveness Scale 11event-related potentialsimpulsivitypathological Internet use
Type
Research Article
Information
Acta Neuropsychiatrica , Volume 22 , Issue 5 , October 2010 , pp. 228 - 236
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Davis, RA.A cognitive-behavioral model of pathological Internet use. Comput Human Behav 2001;17:187–195. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Ks, Rogers, RC.The relationship between depression and Internet addiction. Cyberpsychol Behav 1998;1:25–128. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finn, PRJustus, A, Mazas, C, Steinmetz, JE.Working memory, executive processes and the effects of alcohol on Go/No-Go learning: testing a model of behavioral regulation and impulsivity. Psychopharmacol 1999;146:465–472. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Block, JJ.Issues for DSM-V: internet addiction. Am J Psychiatry 2008;165:306–307. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brard, KW, Wolf, EM.Modification in the proposed diagnostic criteria for Internet addiction. Cyberpsychol Behav 2001;4:377–383. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, M, Black, DW.Internet addiction: definition, assessment, epidemiology and clinical management. CNS Drugs 2008;22:353–365. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patton, JH, Stanford, MS, Barratt, ES.Factor structure of the Barratt impulsiveness scale. J Clin Psychol 1995;51:768–774. 3.0.CO;2-1>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pfefferbaum, A, Ford, JM, Weller, BJ, Kopell, BS.ERPs to response production and inhibition. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1985;60:423–434. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruchsow, M, Spitzer, M, Gron, G, Grothe, J, Kiefer, M.Error processing and impulsiveness in normals: evidence from event-related potentials. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2005;24:317–325. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bekker, EM, Kenemans, JL, Verbaten, MN, Source analysis of the N2 in a cued Go/No-Go task. Cogn Brain Res 2005;22:221–231. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bokura, H, Yamaguchi, S, Kobayashi, S.Electrophysiological correlates for response inhibition in a Go/No-Go task. Clin Neurophysiol 2001;112:2224–2232. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veen, V, Carter, CS.The timing of action-monitoring processes in the anterior cingulate cortex. J. Cogn. Neurosci 2002;14:593–602. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnstone, SJ, Barry, RJ, Markovska, V, Dimoska, A, Clarke, AR.Response inhibition and interference control in children with AD/HD: a visual ERP investigation. Int J Psychophysiol 2009;72:145–153. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiersema, JR, Roeyers, HJ.ERP correlates of effortful control in children with varying levels of ADHD symptoms. Abnorm Child Psychol 2009;37:327–336. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johstone, SJ, Clarke, AR.Dysfunctional response preparation and inhibition during a visual Go/No-go task in children with two subtypes of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Psychiatry Res 2009;166:223–237. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, JL, Johnstone, SJ, Barry, RJ.Movement-related potentials in the Go/No-Go task: the P3 reflects both cognitive and motor inhibition. Clin Neurophysiol 2008;119:704–714. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verleger, R, Paehge, T, Kolew, V, Yordanova, J, Jaskowski, P.On the relation of movement-related potentials to the go/no-go effect on P3. Biol Psychol 2006;73:298–313. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, JL, Johnstone, SJ, Barry, RJ.Effects of pre-stimulus processing on subsequent events in a warned Go/No-Go paradigm: response preparation, execution and inhibition. Int J Psychophysiol 2006;61:121–133. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamarejan, C, Porjesa, B, Jones, KAet al. Alcoholism is a disinhibitory disorder: neurophysiological evidence from a Go/No-Go task. Biol Psychol 2005;69:353–373. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dong, G, Yang, L, Hu, Y, Jiang, Y.Is N2 associated with successful suppression of behavior responses in impulse control processes? Neuroreport 2009;20:537–542. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, CY, Tien, YM, Juan, CH, Tzeng, OJ, Hung, DL.Neural correlates of impulsive-violent behavior: an event-related potential study. Neuroreport 2005;16:1213–1216. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, MS, Kim, YY, Yoo, SY, Kwon, JS.Electrophysiological correlates of behavioral response inhibition in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Depress Anxiety 2007;24:22–31. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruchsow, M, Reuter, K, Hermle, L, Ebert, D, Kiefer, M, Falkenstein, M.Executive control in obsessive-compulsive disorder: event-related potentials in a Go/No-go task. J Neural Transm. 2007;114:1595–1601. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, S, Unger, J, Kiefer, M, Markela, J, Mundt, C, Weisbrod, M.Executive control deficit in depression: event-related potentials in a Go/No-go task. Psychiatry Res 2003;122:169–184. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annett, MA.Classification of hand preference by association analysis. Br J Psychiatry 1970;61:303–321. Google ScholarPubMed
Peter, R, Finn, AJ, Carlos, M, Joseph, ES.Working memory, executive processes and the effects of alcohol on Go/No-Go learning: testing a model of behavioral regulation and impulsivity. Psychopharmacology 1999;146:465–472. Google Scholar
Newman, JP.Reaction to punishment in extraverts and psychopaths: implications for the impulsive behavior of disinhibited individuals. J Res Pers 1987;21:464–480. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasaki, K, Gemba, H.Electrical activity in the prefrontal cortex specific to no-go reaction of conditioned hand movement in color discrimination in the monkey. Exp Brain Res 1986;64:603–606. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kristina, TC, Richard, JH, Lynett, FC.Posterior brain ERP patterns related to the go/no-go task in children. Psychophysiology 2004;41:882–892. Google Scholar
Cao, F, Su, L.Internet addiction among Chinese adolescents: prevalence and psychological features. Child Care Health Dev 2007;33:275–281. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapira, NA, Goldsmith, TD, Khosla, UM, Mcelroy, SL.Psychiatric features of individuals with problematic internet use. J Affect Disord 2000;57:267–272. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Treuer, T, Fabian, Z, Furedi, J.Internet addiction associated with features of impulse control disorder: is it a real psychiatric disorder? J Affect Disord 2001;66:283. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aron, AR.The neural basis of inhibition in cognitive control. Neuroscientist 2007;13:214–228. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weisbrod, M, Kiefer, M, Marzinzik, F, Spitzer, M.Executive control is disturbed in schizophrenia: evidence from event-related potentials in a Go/NoGo task. Biol Psychiatry 2000;47:51–60. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smirth, EE, Jonides, J.Storage and executive processes in the frontal lobes. Science 1999;283:1657–1661. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butters, N, Butter, C, Rosen, J, Stein, D.Behavioral effects of sequential and one-stage ablations of orbital prefrontal cortex in the monkey. Exp Neurol 1973;39:204–214. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iversen, SD, Mishkin, M.Perseverative interference in monkeys following selective loss of the inferior prefrontal convexity. Exp Brain Res 1970;11:376–386. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeggi, SM, Seeweer, R, Nirkko, AC, Eckstein, D, Schroth, G, Groner, R, Gutbrod, K.Does excessive memory load attenuate activation in the prefrontal cortex? Load-dependent processing in single and dual tasks: functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Neuroimage 2003;19:210–225. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Godefroy, O, Rousseaux, M.Divided and focused attention in patients with lesion of the prefrontal cortex. Brain Cogn 1996;30:155–174. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paolo, C, Giovanna, R, Roberto, K, Arcangela, D, Laura, B.Frontal lobe dysfunction in pathological gambling patients. Biol Psychiatry 2002;51:334–341. Google Scholar
Bruin, Kj, Wijers, AA.Inhibition, response mode, and stimulus probability: A comparative event-related potential study. Clin Neurophysiol 2002;113:1172–1182. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jodo, E, Kayama, Y.Relation of negative ERP component to response inhibition in a go/no-go task. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1992;82:477–482. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falkenstein, M, Hoormann, J, Hohnsbein, J.ERP components in the go/no-go tasks and their relation to inhibition. Acta Psychologica 1999;101:267–291. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proverbio, AM, Del, ZM, Crott, N, Zani, A.A no-go related prefrontal negativity larger to irrelevant stimuli that are difficult to suppress. Behav Brain Funct 2009;5:25. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed