Schizotypy is defined as a time-stable multidimensional personality trait consisting of positive, negative, and disorganized facets. Schizotypy is considered as a model system of psychosis, as there is considerable overlap between the 2 constructs. High schizotypy is associated with subtle but fairly widespread cognitive alterations, which include poorer performance in tasks measuring cognitive control. Similar but more pronounced impairments in cognitive control have been described extensively in psychosis. We here sought to provide a quantitative estimation of the effect size of impairments in schizotypy in the updating, shifting, and inhibition dimensions of cognitive control. We included studies of healthy adults from both general population and college samples, which used either categorical or correlative designs. Negative schizotypy was associated with significantly poorer performance on shifting (g = 0.32) and updating (g = 0.11). Positive schizotypy was associated with significantly poorer performance on shifting (g = 0.18). There were no significant associations between schizotypy and inhibition. The divergence in results for positive, negative, and disorganized schizotypy emphasizes the importance of examining relationships between cognition and the facets of schizotypy rather than using the overall score. Our findings also underline the importance of more detailed research to further understand and define this complex personality construct, which will also be of importance when applying schizotypy as a model system for psychosis.

Generativity—showing concern to establish and guide future generations—has been argued to be a biological adaptation central to cumulative culture and survival, but also, in turn, to be a cultural adaptation dependent on norms. From the perspective of human agency, concern for the future has played a key role in raising agency for generations that follow by creating infrastructure and cultural inheritance. Here, in a population-representative sample of 756 twin-pairs, we present the first test of the genetic and environmental structure of generativity using the Loyola Generativity Scale (short). Genetic analysis of scale sum-scores revealed that shared environmental effects were comparable in magnitude or exceeded effects estimated for genetic differences (A = 0.30 CI95 [− 0.01, 0.61], C = 0.41 [0.25, 0.56], E = 0.86 [0.79, 0.93]). At the item level, a well-fitting genetically-informed model suggested 3 factors influencing generativity via a common-pathway structure. The first was tentatively characterized as reflecting a heritable general concern for the future. The second reflected being a valued source of advice and assistance. The third factor showed only unique environment effects and had as its strongest indicator having had a good influence on the lives of others. Replicability of this structure should be tested in the full version of the scale. Work is needed also to validate influences of generativity on vocations such as teaching and on philanthropic activity improving life for subsequent generations.

Background: Inhibitory control is a crucial executive function with high relevance to mental and physical well-being. However, there are still unanswered questions regarding its neural mechanisms, including the role of the major inhibitory neurotransmitter, γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA). Aims: This study examined the effects of lorazepam (0.5 mg and 1 mg), a positive allosteric modulator at the GABAA receptor, on response inhibition and interference control. We also explored the heterogeneity of inhibitory control and calculated delta plots to explore whether lorazepam affects the gradual build-up of inhibition and activation over time. Methods: N = 50 healthy participants performed antisaccade, Eriksen flanker and Simon tasks in a within-subjects, placebo-controlled, double-blind randomized design. Results: Lorazepam increased reaction time (RT) and error rates dose dependently in all tasks ( p ⩽ 0.005). In the antisaccade and Simon tasks, lorazepam increased congruency effects for error rate ( p ⩽ 0.029) but not RT ( p ⩾ 0.587). In the Eriksen flanker task, both congruency effects were increased by the drug ( p ⩽ 0.031). Delta plots did not reflect drug-induced changes in inhibition and activation over time. Delta plots for RT in the Simon task were negative-going, as expected, whereas those for the antisaccade and flanker tasks were positive-going. Conclusions: This study provides evidence for GABAergic involvement in performance on response inhibition and interference control tasks. Furthermore, our findings highlight the diversity of the broader construct of inhibitory control while also pointing out similarities between different inhibitory control tasks. In contrast to RT and error rates, the cognitive processes indexed by delta plots may not be sensitive to GABAergic modulation.

Background: Inhibitory control is a crucial executive function with high relevance to mental and physical wellbeing. However, there are still unanswered questions regarding its neural mechanisms, including the role of the major inhibitory neurotransmitter, γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA). Aims: This study examined the effects of lorazepam (0.5 mg and 1 mg), a positive allosteric modulator at the GABAA receptor, on response inhibition and interference control. We also explored the heterogeneity of inhibitory control and calculated delta plots to explore whether lorazepam affects the gradual build-up of inhibition and activation over time. Method: A sample of N=50 healthy participants performed antisaccade, Eriksen flanker and Simon tasks in a within-subjects, placebo-controlled, double-blind randomised design. Results: Lorazepam increased mean reaction times (MRT) and error rates dose-dependently in all tasks (p≤.005). In the antisaccade and Simon tasks, lorazepam increased congruency effects for error rate (p≤.029) but not for MRT (p≥.587). In the Eriksen flanker task, both congruency effects were increased by the drug (p≤.031). Delta plots did not reflect any drug-induced changes in inhibition and activation over time. Delta plots for MRT in the Simon task were negative-going, as expected, whereas those for the antisaccade and flanker tasks were positive-going. Conclusions: This study provides clear evidence for GABAergic involvement in inhibitory control. Furthermore, our findings highlight the diversity of inhibitory control while also pointing out similarities between different inhibitory control tasks. In contrast to MRTs and error rates, the cognitive processes provided by delta plots appear not to be sensitive to GABAergic modulation.Draft version, 02.04.2020. This paper has not been peer reviewed. Please do not copy or cite without author's permission.

Rationale Nicotine has been widely studied for its pro-dopaminergic effects. However, at the behavioural level, past investigations have yielded heterogeneous results concerning effects on cognitive, affective, and motor outcomes, possibly linked to individual differences at the level of genetics. A candidate polymorphism is the 40-base-pair variable number of tandem repeats polymorphism (rs28363170) in the SLC6A3 gene coding for the dopamine transporter (DAT). The polymorphism has been associated with striatal DAT availability (9R-carriers > 10R-homozygotes), and 9R-carriers have been shown to react more strongly to dopamine agonistic pharmacological challenges than 10R-homozygotes. Objectives In this preregistered study, we hypothesized that 9R-carriers would be more responsive to nicotine due to genotype-related differences in DAT availability and resulting dopamine activity. Methods N=194 non-smokers were grouped according to their genotype (9R-carriers, 10R-homozygotes) and received either 2-mg nicotine or placebo gum in a between-subject design. Spontaneous blink rate (SBR) was obtained as an indirect measure of striatal dopamine activity and smooth pursuit, stop signal, simple choice and affective processing tasks were carried out in randomized order. Results Reaction times were decreased under nicotine compared to placebo in the simple choice and stop signal tasks, but nicotine and genotype had no effects on any of the other task outcomes. Conditional process analyses testing the mediating effect of SBR on performance and how this is affected by genotype yielded no significant results. Conclusions Overall, we could not confirm our main hypothesis. Individual differences in nicotine response could not be explained by rs28363170 genotype.

Living organisms need to cope with abundant sensory information, and one strategy is to selectively direct attention to only the most relevant part of the environment. Although the cortical networks of selective attention have been studied extensively, its underlying neurotransmitter systems, especially the role of the inhibitory neurotransmitter gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), remain less well understood. Increased GABAA receptor activity because of administration of benzodiazepines such as lorazepam is known to slow reactions in cognitive tasks. However, there is limited knowledge about GABAergic involvement in selective attention. Particularly, it is unknown whether increased GABAA receptor activity slows the build-up of selectivity or generally widens attentional focus. To address this question, participants (n = 29) received 1-mg lorazepam and placebo (within-subjects, double-blind) and performed an extended version of the flanker task. The spatial distribution of selective attention was studied by systematically manipulating number and position of incongruent flankers; the temporal build-up was characterized using delta plots. An online task version was presented to an independent, unmedicated sample (n = 25) to verify task effects. Under placebo and in the unmedicated sample, only the number of incongruent flankers, but not their position, influenced RTs. Incongruent flankers impaired RTs more strongly under lorazepam than placebo, especially when adjacent to the target. Delta plot analyses of RT showed that this effect persisted even when participants reacted slowly, indicating that lorazepam-induced impairments in selective attention do not result from simply slowed down build-up of selectivity. Instead, our data indicate that increased GABAA receptor activity widens the attentional focus.

The reliability of inhibitory control task performance as well as the existence of an underlying unitary inhibitory construct have been questioned. The present study is the first to use a trait and state decomposition approach to formally quantify the reliability of inhibitory control and to examine its hierarchical structure. N = 150 participants carried out antisaccade, Eriksen flanker, go/nogo, Simon, stop-signal, and Stroop tasks on three occasions. By applying latent state–trait modeling and latent growth-curve modeling, reliability was estimated and divided into the amount of variance explained by trait effects and trait changes (consistency) and the amount of variance explained by situational effects and effects of Situation × Person interaction (occasion specificity). Mean reaction times for all tasks revealed excellent reliabilities (.89–.99). Importantly, on average, 82% of variance was accounted for by consistency while specificity was rather small. Although primary inhibitory variables revealed lower reliabilities (.51–.85), the majority of explained variance was again trait determined. Trait changes were observed for most variables and were strongest when comparing the first occasion to later ones. In addition, in some variables, those improvements were particularly high in initially underperforming subjects. An analysis of the construct of inhibition on trait level showed that communality between tasks was low. We conclude that most variables in inhibitory control tasks are mainly affected by stable trait effects, but there is only little evidence of a common, underlying inhibitory control construct at trait level.

Adaptive behavior is only possible by stopping stereotypical actions to generate new plans according to internal goals. It is response inhibition —the ability to stop actions automatically triggered by exogenous cues— that allows for the flexible interplay between bottom-up, stimulus driven behaviors, and top-down strategies. In addition to response inhibition, cognitive control draws on conflict adaptation, the facilitation of top-down actions following high conflict situations. It is currently unclear whether and how response inhibition and conflict adaptation depend on GABAergic signaling, the main inhibitory neurotransmitter in the human brain. Here, we applied a recently developed computational model (SERIA) to data from two studies (N=150 & 50) of healthy volunteers performing Simon and antisaccade tasks. One of these datasets was acquired under placebo-controlled pharmacological enhancement of GABAergic transmission (lorazepam, an allosteric modulator of the GABA-A receptor). Our model-based results suggest that enhanced GABA-A signaling boosts conflict adaptation but impairs response inhibition. More generally, our computational approach establishes a unified account of response inhibition and conflict adaptation in the Simon and antisaccade tasks and provides a novel tool for quantifying specific aspects of cognitive control and their modulation by pharmacology or disease.Author SummaryOur capacity to prepare for situations that afford conflicting responses (conflict adaptation) and to stop our immediate impulses in these scenarios (response inhibition) are the hallmark of cognitive control. As these abilities require both the stopping or slowing of response tendencies, a natural question is whether they are mediated by inhibitory neurotransmission in the brain. Here, we combined computational modeling with two experiments to investigate how conflict adaptation and response inhibition interact with each other (experiment 1) and how these are modulated by lorazepam (experiment 2), a positive modulator of the GABA-A receptor, one of the main inhibitory receptors in the human brain. Using our computational model to disentangle conflict adaptation and response inhibition, our results indicate that while lorazepam impaired response inhibition, it improved conflict adaptation. Thus, our results suggests that conflict adaptation is mediated by GABA-A neurotransmission.