Laboratory Measures Of Impulsivity Research Articles

Self-Control Capacity as a Predictor of Borderline Personality Disorder Features, Problematic Drinking, and Their Co-occurrence.

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD) share impulsivity as an etiological factor. However, impulsivity is ill-defined, often overlapping with self-control capacity. This study attempts to disentangle these constructs and their associations with alcohol use and BPD. Undergraduates (n = 192) completed the Five Factor Model Rating Form, which generated two-dimensional scales of BPD, the Self-Control Scale, the UPPS-P (self-reported impulsivity), and the stop-signal and delay discounting tasks (laboratory-measured impulsivity). Self-control appeared as a major predictor of BPD features and drinking, explaining as much or more variance in outcome than impulsivity. Co-occurrence of elevated BPD features and problem drinking was also best explained by self-control. Laboratory measures of impulsivity were not correlated with BPD scales or alcohol use. Self-regulatory capacity may be an important but overlooked factor in BPD and alcohol use and should be considered alongside impulsivity in future research.

Behavioral laboratory measures of impulsivity and decision-making in cigarette smokers

Behavioral laboratory measures of impulsivity and decision-making in cigarette smokers

Startle-response based tasks and laboratory measures of impulsivity in abstinent alcoholic patients.

It is well known that impulsivity is a risk factor for the development of Addictive Disorders, and more specifically Alcohol Use Disorders (AUD). Recently, the Startle-Response Based Tasks (SRBT) and its different forms of plasticity have been found to be impaired in the alcoholic population. This is the first study to explore the correlation between impulsivity laboratory tasks and the SRBT test, in order to determine whether impulsivity and startle response (SR) could be related and in turn, explain their association with Alcohol Dependence (AD). 40 men, who met DSM-IV criteria for AD and had been abstinent for at least one month. Impulsivity was assessed using three laboratory tests: Continuous Performance Test (CPT), Stop-Signal Task (SST) and Differential Reinforcement for Low-Rate Responding (DRL6). Patients also underwent the SR test. They were compared to 40 matched controls. Impulsivity laboratory measures tasks (SST and commissions of the CPT) correlated positively with the magnitude of SR (P < 0.05) and with habituation (P < 0.05). Scores on DRL6 correlated negatively with the magnitude of SR (P < 0.05). This was not found in the control group. The fact that impulsivity laboratory measures and the SR are correlated in patients but not in controls, could imply the existence of a common link for these two measures in alcoholic patients. Our findings support the hypothesis of the existence of two different vulnerability pathways for the development of AUD: anxiety and disinhibitory behaviour.

Self-report and laboratory measures of impulsivity in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and healthy controls

This study examined self-reported impulsivity and aggression and performance on the stop-signal task in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and healthy volunteers. Compared to controls, patients had higher scores on interview and questionnaire measures of impulsivity and aggression and showed increased stop-signal reaction time and greater response variability. These findings are consistent with a specific impairment in response inhibition in schizophrenia.

Investigating the behavioral and self-report constructs of impulsivity domains using principal component analysis

Impulsivity, often defined as a human behavior characterized by the inclination of an individual to act on urge rather than thought, with diminished regard to consequences, encompasses a range of maladaptive behaviors, which are in turn affected by distinct neural systems. Congruent with the above definition, behavioral studies have consistently shown that the underlying construct of impulsivity is multidimensional in nature. However, research to date has been inconclusive regarding the different domains or constructs that constitute this behavior. In addition there is also no clear consensus as to whether self-report and laboratory based measures of impulsivity measure the same or different domains. This study aimed to: (i) characterize the underlying multidimensional construct of impulsivity using a sample with varying degrees of putative impulsivity related to substance misuse, including subjects who were at-risk of substance use or addicted (ARA), and (ii) assess relationships between self-report and laboratory measures of impulsivity, using a principal component-based factor analysis. In addition, our supplementary goal was to evaluate the structural constructs of impulsivity within each group separately (healthy and ARA). We used five self-report measures (Behavioral Inhibition System/Behavioral Activation System, Barratt Impulsivity Scale-11, Padua Inventory, Zuckerman Sensation Seeking Scale, and Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire) and two computer-based laboratory tasks (Balloon Analog Risk Task and the Experiential Discounting Task) to measure the aspects of impulsivity in a total of 176 adult subjects. Subjects included healthy controls (n = 89), nonalcoholic subjects with family histories of alcoholism (family history positive; n = 36) and both former (n = 20) and current (n = 31) cocaine users. Subjects with a family history of alcoholism and cocaine abusers were grouped together as 'at-risk/addicted' (ARA) to evaluate our supplementary goal. Our overall results revealed the multidimensional nature of the impulsivity construct as captured optimally through a five-factor solution that accounted for nearly 70% of the total variance. The five factors/components were imputed as follows 'Self-Reported Behavioral Activation', 'Self-Reported Compulsivity and Reward/Punishment', 'Self-Reported Impulsivity', 'Behavioral Temporal Discounting', and 'Behavioral Risk-Taking'. We also found that contrary to previously published reports, there was significant overlap between certain laboratory and self-report measures, indicating that they might be measuring the same impulsivity domain. In addition, our supplemental analysis also suggested that the impulsivity constructs were largely, but not entirely the same within the healthy and ARA groups.

Distinctions in Behavioral Impulsivity: Implications for Substance Abuse Research

OBJECTIVES: Researchers have clearly implicated impulsivity as having a key role in substance use disorders, and comparisons of self-report measures suggest there are measurably different components of impulsive behavior. However comparatively little research has been devoted to understanding the multidimensional nature of this construct using laboratory measures of impulsivity that may be more sensitive to tracking changes across time. Many studies have measured impulsivity, but this construct has been measured using methodologically different types of laboratory impulsivity paradigms that are often used in isolation. As a result, it is important to determine whether some of the most frequently used types of behavioral measures of impulsivity account for unique variance. METHODS: Here, we used factor analytical techniques in two studies to evaluate the independence of three of the most commonly used behavioral impulsivity paradigms. First, a factor analysis was conducted using previously collected data (n = 204), and second, data was gathered specifically to replicate and extend the results of our original analysis (n = 198). RESULTS: Both studies revealed three distinct factors, confirming our hypothesis of at least three components of impulsive behavior that can be measured by these methodological approaches. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that researchers should carefully consider their selection of laboratory-behavioral impulsivity measures, and that the measure(s) selected should be related to the particular underlying processes relevant to substance use disorders and treatment success.

The role of behavioural measures of impulsivity in the development of alcohol dependence

Background:The link between impulsivity and alcohol use disorders has been established in longitudinal and cross-sectional studies, but little is know about the role of behavioural impulsivity in the development of substance use disorders.Objectives:Determine the role of behavioural measures of impulsivity in the development of alcohol use disorders.Design and measurements:A prospective cohort study was conducted to identify the risk factors associated with alcohol dependence. Non-dependent heavy drinkers (N=471) and healthy controls (N=149) were recruited from primary care centres. They were assessed at the end of the 4-year follow-up period. Diagnoses were rendered using the Structured Interview for DSM-IV. The continuous performance test (CPT) and stop-signal task (SST) assessed behavioural inhibition. Differential reinforcement for low-rate responding (DRLR) was used to evaluate the delay discounting dimension.Results:HD participants have significant impairments on all laboratory measures of impulsivity. In the logistic regression model, impairment on DRLR (delay discounting dimension) was the only measure that classified accurately HD. Baseline behavioural measures of impulsivity correlated positively with amount of alcohol consumption during the follow-up period. Logistic regression analysis indicated that performance on inhibitory control (SST) (behavioural inhibition dimension) was a significant predictor (odds=1.52[1.08-2.31]) for developing alcohol dependence.Conclusions:Our data support the link between behavioural measures of impulsivity and alcohol use disorders. Delay discounting dimension may be a risk factor for begin alcohol use heavily and behavioural inhibition impairment is more involved in the development of dependence.

Behavioral phenotypes of impulsivity related to the ANKK1 gene are independent of an acute stressor.

BackgroundThe A1 allele of the ANKK1 TaqIA polymorphism (previously reported as located in the D2 dopamine receptor (DRD2) gene) is associated with reduced DRD2 density in the striatum and with clinical disorders, particularly addiction. It was hypothesized that impulsivity represents an endophenotype underlying these associations with the TaqIA and that environmental stress would moderate the strength of the gene-behavior relationship.MethodsTaqIA genotyping was conducted on 72 healthy young adults who were randomly allocated to either an acute psychosocial stress or relaxation induction condition. Behavioral phenotypes of impulsivity were measured using a card-sorting index of reinforcement sensitivity and computerized response inhibition and delay discounting tasks.ResultsSeparate analyses of variance revealed associations between the A1 allele and two laboratory measures of impulsivity. The presence of the TaqIA allele (A1+) was associated with slower card-sorting in the presence of small financial reinforcers, but was overcome in a second administration after either a five-minute rest or psychosocial stress induction. A1+ participants also demonstrated significantly poorer response inhibition and faster response times on a computerized stop inhibition task, independent of acute stress exposure.ConclusionThese findings indicate the A1 allele is associated with an endophenotype comprising both a "rash impulsive" behavioral style and reinforcement-related learning deficits. These effects are independent of stress.

Measuring impulsivity in school-aged boys and examining its relationship with ADHD and ODD ratings.

Seven different laboratory measures of impulsivity were administered to a group of 165 school-aged boys. Parents' and teachers' ratings of Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder and Oppositional/Defiant Disorder were also obtained. Factor analyses of impulsivity measures revealed the existence of a strong Inhibitory Control Factor including measures derived from Stop Task, the Continuous Performance Test, the Matching Familiar Figures Test, and the Circle Tracing Task. Other forms of impulsivity like resistance to interference, the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test and efficiency in the DRL Task loaded on a second independent factor. The Inhibitory Control factor was correlated with ADHD ratings, whereas the second factor was slightly related to the presence of ODD symptoms. Discussion is focused on the relevance of inhibitory control in impulsivity and ADHD research.

Laboratory Measures of Impulsivity: A Comparison of Women with or Without Childhood Aggression

This study compared laboratory models of impulsive behavior in 60 women ages 18–40. Three groups (n = 20, each) were recruited: (1) normal controls, (2) women on probation/parole without childhood aggression (Fight-), and (3) women on probation/parole with childhood aggression (Fight+). Two types of impulsivity paradigms were compared: response-disinhibition/attentional [Immediate/Delayed Memory Task (IMT/DMT)] and delayed-reward [Single Key Impulsivity Paradigm (SKIP)] models. The Fight+ group performed more impulsively, responding with more commission errors (IMT/DMT) and shorter delay choices (SKIP) compared to either the Fight- or Control groups. Compared to the SKIP, the IMT and DMT tasks had larger effect sizes and a more orderly pattern of impulsive performance differences between groups. Women classified on the basis of childhood behavior (initiating physical aggression) are behaviorally distinct on laboratory measures of impulsiveness in adulthood.

Two models of impulsivity: relationship to personality traits and psychopathology

Background: Impulsivity is prominent in psychiatric disorders. Two dominant models of impulsivity are the reward-discounting model, where impulsivity is defined as inability to wait for a larger reward, and the rapid-response model, where impulsivity is defined as responding without adequate assessment of context. We have compared the role of these models of impulsivity in human psychopathology, based on the hypothesis that rapid-response impulsivity would be more strongly related to other aspects of psychopathology and to impulsivity as described by questionnaires. Methods: We investigated relationships between personality and laboratory measures of impulsivity, and between these measures and clinical characteristics, in parents of adolescent subjects with disruptive behavioral disorders (DBDs) and matched control subjects. Diagnoses were rendered using the Structured Interview for DSM-IV. The Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS) was used as a trait measure of impulsivity. Rapid-response impulsivity was assessed using a form of the Continuous Performance Test, the Immediate Memory-Delayed Memory Task (IMT/DMT). Reward-delay impulsivity was measured using two tasks where subjects could choose between smaller immediate or larger delayed rewards. Results: Rapid-response, but not reward-delay impulsivity, was significantly higher in subjects with lifetime Axis I or Axis II diagnoses. Scores on the BIS were elevated in subjects with Axis I diagnoses and correlated significantly with both rapid-response and reward-delay tests, but more strongly with the former. Multiple regression showed that rapid-response, but not reward-delay performance or intelligence quotient, contributed significantly to BIS scores. Correlations were similar in parents of control subjects and of DBD subjects. Conclusions: These data suggest that measures of rapid-response impulsivity and of reward-delay impulsivity are both related to impulsivity as a personality characteristic. The relationship appears stronger, however, for rapid-response impulsivity, as measured by the IMT/DMT. Laboratory and personality measures of impulsivity appear to be related to risk of psychopathology.

489. Laboratory measures of impulsivity in hospitalized adolescents with disruptive behavior disorders

Disruptive behavior disorders (DBD) in DSM-IV include Conduct Disorder (CD) and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), both of which are characterized by impulsiveness, such as acting without thinking. We attempted to assess the external validity of a variety of computerized measures designed to prospectively measure “impulsiveness” as well as better characterize impulsiveness in DBD. We tested laboratory impulsiveness in adolescent psychiatric inpatients with clinically significant impulse control problems, all of whom met DSM-IV criteria for either CD or ODD. We compared their laboratory impulsiveness with that of adolescent controls. Compared to controls, adolescents with DBD emitted significantly increased rates of “false alarm” responses (to similar but nontarget stimuli) on a difficult variant of the Continuous Performance Test (CPT) with little difference in rates of “hits”. In addition, compared to the controls, patients with DBD displayed a significant inability to inhibit responses to a target “go” stimulus when presented with a “no-go” stimulus 150–350 milliseconds after “go” stimulus presentation. Moreover, in a free operant task which featured conditions of increasing reward (money) with the passage of time since the last response, the adolescents with DBD showed a relative inability to delay free-operant responses for reward. Differences between adolescents with DBD and controls in serotonin-related alleles will be examined in relation to diagnosis and performance on laboratory measures of impulsivity.

Attention deficit, conduct, oppositional, and anxiety disorders in children: III. Laboratory differences.

Children aged 5-13 years with DSM-III diagnoses of Attention Deficit (ADDH), Anxiety, (ANX), or Conduct plus ADDH (HC) Disorder and matched normal controls were compared on a set of laboratory measures of impulsivity, arousal, motor performance, activity level, and cognition, and on behavior ratings during testing. While ANX patients did not differ from their controls, ADDH and HC patients did on Verbal IQ, most of the behavior ratings, and on about one-third of the test variables. ANX patients were about 1 year older, and more likely to be female, than ADDH and HC patients. When age, sex, and verbal IQ effects were partialed out, very few differences among the three diagnostic groups remained. The importance of precise control of such variables is emphasized and the impact of the failure to do so in past studies is discussed. The question is raised whether the deficit in verbal IQ is not so much a defect of matching as the essential feature of ADDH from which most of the other commonly reported cognitive symptoms stem.