The Specificity of Inhibitory Impairments in Autism and Their Relation to ADHD-Type Symptoms

Abstract

Findings on inhibitory control in autism have been inconsistent. This is perhaps a reflection of the different tasks that have been used. Children with autism (CWA) and typically developing controls, matched for verbal and non-verbal mental age, completed three tasks of inhibition, each representing different inhibitory subcomponents: Go/No-Go (delay inhibition), Dog-Pig Stroop (conflict inhibition), and a Flanker task (resistance to distractor inhibition). Behavioural ratings of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity were also obtained, as a possible source of heterogeneity in inhibitory ability. CWA were only impaired on the conflict inhibition task, suggesting that inhibitory difficulty is not a core executive deficit in autism. Symptoms of inattention were related to conflict task performance, and thus may be an important predictor of inhibitory heterogeneity.

Prepotent Response Inhibition and Interference Control in Autism Spectrum Disorders: Two Meta‐Analyses

“…As studies differed considerably in the inclusion criteria with respect to IQ, we first tested whether IQ was a significant moderator. Please note that not all studies ( n = 7) reported Wechsler scaled IQ [Adams & Jarrold, , ; Ames & Jarrold, ; Jahromi, Bryce, & Swanson, ; Robinson, Goddard, Dritschel, Wisley, & Howlin, ; Sanderson & Allen, ; Yoran‐Hegesh et al., ], therefore these exploratory analyses are based on a subset of the studies included in the planned analyses.…”

“…However, there are also studies that have found no difference between typically developing and ASD individuals in either of these two inhibition domains [prepotent response inhibition: Chan et al., ; Happé & Frith, ; Lee et al., ; Ozonoff et al., ; Schmitz et al., ; Sinzig, Morsch, Bruning, Schmidt, & Lehmkuhl, ; interference control: Goldberg et al., ; Johnston et al., ; Kilinçaslan et al., ; Larson et al., ; Schmitz et al., ; Solomon et al., ; Solomon et al., ; Xiao et al., ]. Given that inhibition is a multifaceted construct, several researchers have tested multiple measures of inhibitory control on a single cohort of participants [Adams & Jarrold, , ; Christ et al., , ; Geurts et al., ; Kilinçaslan et al., ; Sanderson & Allen, ; Xiao et al., ]. Based on multiple measures, Christ and colleagues [Christ et al., , ] concluded that children with autism do encounter interference control deficits (as measured with the Flanker paradigm) but have no problems with inhibiting prepotent responses (as measured with Stroop [like] tasks and the Go/No‐Go task [for contrasting findings, see Geurts et al., ]).…”

Tunnel Vision: Sharper Gradient of Spatial Attention in Autism

“…One might also expect a sharper gradient of attention to reduce the interference/enhancement from incongruent/congruent Eriksen flankers in ASC, but the literature is mixed, with some reports of equivalent interference in ASC and controls (e.g. Sanderson and Allen, 2012) and others reporting increased interference (e.g. Adams and Jarrold, 2012).…”

Neural and behavioral suppression of interfering flankers by children with and without autism spectrum disorder

“…Behavioral performance on flanker tasks is impaired in adults, adolescents and children with ASD relative to comparison groups without ASD (Adams & Jarrold, 2012; Christ et al, 2011; Dichter & Belger, 2008; Geurts, Luman, van Meel, 2008; but see Sanderson & Allen, 2013). Individuals with ASD have slower reaction times and worse accuracy for the incongruent condition relative to comparison groups, and these effects were apparent even when the task was manipulated in ways that make it easier for youth without autism (Adams & Jarrold, 2012).…”