Exploring Different Facets of Impulsive Sensation Seeking in a Response Inhibition Task

1. O O + O X + X + * # O 100 ms 1000 ms 1400 ms 200 ms 1000 ms 1300 ms 300 ms 1000 ms 1200 ms Exploring Different Facets of Impulsive Sensation Seeking in a Response Inhibition Task J. E. Joseph1, H. R. Collins1, X. Liu1, Y. Jiang2 & T. H. Kelly2 1 Department of Anatomy & Neurobiology, 2 Department of Behavioral Science, University of Kentucky Background “Behavioral Activation” Regions (Go > NoGo only for HSS) Boredom Susceptibility and Urgency • Impulsive sensation seeking is a personality trait that can lead to various negative behavioral and clinical outcomes • However, the trait of “impulsivity” has many facets including rash decision making in the face of negative affect (Negative Urgency, Whiteside & Lynam, 2001) and intolerance for repetition (Boredom Susceptibility; Zuckerman, 1994) • Go/no-go and stop signal tasks are useful measures of impulsivity in laboratory settings • Objective: To explore whether different neural substrates engaged for behavioral inhibition are associated with the different facets of impulsivity Methods • Twenty High sensation seekers (HSS, 10 males) scored in the top quartile of the Brief Sensation Seeking Scale (Hoyle et al., 2002). Twenty Low sensation seekers (LSS, 10 males) scored in the bottom quartile. • Participants completed a battery of personality tests in addition to the fMRI task (below) • EPI acquisition parameters: TR=2500 ms, TE=30 ms, FA=81º, 40 axial slices, 3.5-mm3 voxels) • fMRI analysis used FSL and standard preprocessing steps • Regions that showed a Condition (Go v. NoGo) x Group status (LSS v. HSS) interaction were further explored with stepwise regressions • Group status (HSS/LSS), sex, Boredom Susceptibility and Disinhibition (Zuckerman, 1994), Urgency, Lack of Perseverance, Lack of Premeditation (Whiteside & Lynam) and ZKPQ-Impulsivity (Zuckeman et al., 1993) were predictors of fMRI signal Sensation Seeking Modulation (NoGo > Go for LSS and Go > NoGo for HSS) Boredom Susceptibility & Urgency “Behavioral Inhibition” Regions (NoGo > Go only for LSS) Boredom Susceptibility L HSS inappropriately recruit behavioral inhibition regions Conclusions Stop Signal Task Urgency and Boredom Susceptibility were associated with different neural systems in the stop signal task. Higher levels of urgency were associated with increased activation in the behavioral activation system that included motor and limbic components Higher boredom susceptibility was associated with reduced activation in the behavioral inhibition system including right prefrontal cortex and cingulate regions See a cue (O or X); press the corresponding button if the cue is followed by a “Go” signal (green box); do not press the button if followed by a “Nogo” signal (red box) Condition (Go, Nogo) x Timepoint x Group Interaction, F(7, 33) = 2.5, p < .037 Group difference occurred at 6 sec for Nogo condition Condition (Go, Nogo) x Timepoint x Group Interaction, F(7, 33) = 4.5, p < .001 Group difference occurred at 3.5 sec for Nogo conditon “X” “O” Hoyle, R. H., Stephenson, M. T., Palmgreen, P., Lorch, E. P., & Donohew, R. L. (2002). Reliability and validity of a brief measure of sensation seeking. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 401-414. Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). The five factor model and impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(4), 669-689. Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., Joireman, J., Teta, P. & Kraft, M. (1993). A comparison of three structural models of personality: The big three, the big five, and the alternative five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65, 757-768. This research was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (P50 DA005312, R01 HD052724, P20 RR015592) and the National Science Foundation (BCS-0224240).