Does behavioural inhibition system dysfunction contribute to Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder?

Abstract

The Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality has as its main foundation a Behavioural Inhibition System (BIS), defined by anxiolytic drugs, in which high trait sensitivity should lead to internalising, anxiety, disorders. Conversely, it has been suggested that low BIS sensitivity would be a characteristic of externalising disorders. BIS output should lead to increased arousal and attention as well as behavioural inhibition. Here, therefore, we tested whether an externalising disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), involves low BIS sensitivity. Goal-Conflict-Specific Rhythmicity (GCSR) in an auditory Stop Signal Task is a right frontal EEG biomarker of BIS function. We assessed children diagnosed with ADHD-I (inattentive) or ADHD-C (combined) and healthy control groups for GCSR in: a) an initial smaller study in Dunedin, New Zealand (population ~120,000: 15 control, 10 ADHD-I, 10 ADHD-C); and b) a main larger one in Tehran, Iran (population ~9 [city]-16 [metropolis] million: 27 control, 18 ADHD-I, 21 ADHD-C). GCSR was clear in controls (particularly at 6–7 Hz) and in ADHD-C (particularly at 8–9 Hz) but was reduced in ADHD-I. Reduced attention and arousal in ADHD-I could be due, in part, to BIS dysfunction. However, hyperactivity and impulsivity in ADHD-C are unlikely to reflect reduced BIS activity. Increased GCSR frequency in ADHD-C may be due to increased input to the BIS. BIS dysfunction may contribute to some aspects of ADHD (and potentially other externalising disorders) and to some differences between the ADHD subtypes but other prefrontal systems (and, e.g. dopamine) are also important.

Goal-Conflict EEG Theta and Biased Economic Decisions: A Role for a Second Negative Motivation System

“…Particularly, the economic paradigms allow us to test for extreme sensitivities, not only to gain and loss but, also goal conflict (when the possibility of both gain and loss generates approach-avoidance conflict). This links back to existing neuropsychological analysis, which suggests links between: (a) low punishment sensitivity and psychopathy (Corr and McNaughton, 2014); (b) high punishment sensitivity to fear and phobic disorders (McNaughton, 2011(McNaughton, , 2019; low conflict sensitivity to ADHD-inattentive (Sadeghi et al, 2019); and of specific relevance here, high conflict sensitivity to anxiety (Gray and McNaughton, 2000).…”

Personality neuroscience and psychopathology: should we start with biology and look for neural-level factors?

“…Here, we have two phenotypes with radically different genetic causes and quite different paths to dysfunction but a subset of very similar neural system abnormalities that map to a subset of shared ABCD pattern abnormalities. The key to understanding the ABCD patterns (involving vision, motor control, attention, working memory, planning and behavioural inhibition) and their variations between the disorders is to map them to variation in dopamine systems and to distinct rostral and caudal elements of the GIS (Stevenson & McNaughton, 2013, Figure 5, p. 78) and perhaps also to overall GIS sensitivity for the inattentive ADHD subtype (Sadeghi et al, 2018).…”

Editorial: an emerging field with bright prospects

“…For example, a special issue, edited by Robert Latzman, Robert Krueger, Colin DeYoung and Giorgia Michelini (2021), tackled the important topic of connecting quantitativelyderived personality-psychopathology models and neuroscience. Other papers published since its inception attest to the diversity of the field, covering such areas: narcissism (Jauk & Kanske, 2021); machine learning approaches for parsing comorbidity and heterogeneity in antisociality and substance use disorders (Shane & Denomme, 2001); ketamine and neuroticism (McNaughton & Glue, 2020); anxiety and mindfulness (Jaiswal, Mugglen, Juan, & Liang, 2019); openness to experience and dopamine effects on divergent thinking (Käckenmester, Bott, & Wacker, 2019); behavioural inhibition system dysfunction and ADHD (Sadeghi et al, 2019); the neurobiological and environmental aetiology of psychopathy (Frazier, Ferreira, & Gonzales, 2019); curiosity as a fundamental aspect of personality (Zurn & Bassett, 2018); virtual personalities neural network models and their neurobiological underpinnings (Read, Brown, Wang, & Miller, 2018); neuroanatomical correlates of hierarchical personality traits in chimpanzees, and their associations with limbic structures (Latzman, Boysen, & Schapiro, 2018); and the opportunities for personality neuroscience of network approaches to understanding individual differences in brain connectivity (Tompson, Falk, Vettel, & Bassett, 2018). The capacity to integrate across such diverse areas is a powerful feature of personality neuroscienceindeed, it was one of the reasons the journal was founded.…”