It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
With recent proposal suggesting the multifaceted nature of impulsivity, researchers have been intrigued by the question of whether the impulsive behaviour measured in the traditionally psychological paradigms is unitary. One such paradigm, the differential reinforcement of low-rate responding (DRL), has been used to assess response inhibition, but its underlying mechanism has still been debated. In present research, we examined and differentiated the effects of both response inhibition and interval timing on a multisession DRL-10 s (DRL-10 s) in a large sample of normally developing young adults, as well as with three other measures including the stop-signal reaction task (SSRT), time production task-10 s (TPT-10 s), and the Barrett impulsivity scale-11 (BIS-11). The results showed that behavioural changes existed in DRL. As the task sessions progressed, there was an increase in both reinforcement probability and peak time, but a decrease in burst responses. Most importantly, both principal component analysis and generalized multilevel modeling yielded consistent results that as the task progressed, there was an increasing involvement of the TPT in the late sessions of DRL. However, none of the effect of SSRT was found. In sum, the differential degrees of involvement of the timing process, relative to response inhibition, were observed in DRL.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 National Chengchi University, Department of Psychology, Taipei, Taiwan (GRID:grid.412042.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 2106 6277)
2 National Chengchi University, Department of Psychology, Taipei, Taiwan (GRID:grid.412042.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 2106 6277); National Chengchi University, Institute of Neuroscience, Taipei, Taiwan (GRID:grid.412042.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 2106 6277); National Chengchi University, Research Center for Mind, Brain, and Learning, Taipei, Taiwan (GRID:grid.412042.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 2106 6277); Asia University, Department of Psychology, Taichung, Taiwan (GRID:grid.252470.6) (ISNI:0000 0000 9263 9645); China Medical University, Department of Medical Research, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan (GRID:grid.254145.3) (ISNI:0000 0001 0083 6092)
3 National Chengchi University, Research Center for Mind, Brain, and Learning, Taipei, Taiwan (GRID:grid.412042.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 2106 6277)
4 National Chengchi University, Department of Psychology, Taipei, Taiwan (GRID:grid.412042.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 2106 6277); National Chengchi University, Research Center for Mind, Brain, and Learning, Taipei, Taiwan (GRID:grid.412042.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 2106 6277)