Mindfulness and inhibitory control: Insights from the stop signal task with neutral and reward-associated stimuli.

Mindfulness has been linked to enhanced inhibitory control, yet the dynamics of this relationship, especially in reward situations, are not well understood. Our cross-sectional study aimed to explore the relationship between trait mindfulness and a performance measure of inhibitory control as a function of reward context operationalized by stimuli characteristics, and temporal inhibitory demands. Thirty-six individuals aged 19 to 41 filled out the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) and performed a stop signal task (SST), that included both neutral (stone images) and reward-related (money images) stimuli. The SST encompassed four conditions: neutral go/neutral stop, neutral go/reward stop, reward go/neutral stop, and reward go/reward stop, requiring participants to suppress reactions either during or after encountering reward-related stimuli. The relevant index of inhibitory control is the stop signal reaction time (SSRT), a performance measure of inhibitory control. Our findings showed no notable variation in the relationship between the MAAS score and SSRT across the different conditions. However, there was an overall significant effect of MAAS score on SSRT, irrespective of condition. Results may reflect the benefit of mindfulness on inhibitory control after generalized reward exposure.

Seeing attractive faces challenges inhibitory control, especially when mindful.

Previous studies have suggested positive effects of mindfulness on inhibitory control (stopping behaviour). However, scarce previous studies suggest the relationship may depend on context. We provide first evidence that inhibitory control is challenged when perceiving attractive faces, especially when being mindful. Specifically, we investigated the relationship between mindfulness and inhibitory control and the moderating role of a social reward context (being exposed to attractive opposite sex faces). Participants (n = 50) between 18-43 years old (M = 25, SD = 5.4) filled out questionnaires assessing standard demographic variables and dispositional mindfulness. Subsequently, they performed a Go/No-go task with a neutral condition and attractive faces condition. Results showed that inhibitory control was challenged in the attractive condition relative to the neutral condition, p = 0.019. Dispositional mindfulness was negatively correlated with inhibitory performance, but only in the attractive faces condition (r = -0.32, p = 0.024). Results did not support a moderating role of gender. Finally, though post-hoc, higher mindfulness was associated with reduced perceived attractiveness of presented faces (r = -0.33, p = 0.019). However, the relationship between mindfulness and reduced inhibitory control could not be explained by mindfulness associated reduced attractiveness. Taken together, results show that mindfulness challenges inhibitory control when perceiving attractive faces. This implies that mindfulness interventions aimed at enhancing inhibitory control, may not render the desired effect in a context of being exposed to attractive faces. Though certainly plausible, it remains an open question whether results generalize to other reward contexts as well.

Dispositional Mindfulness and Inhibitory Control after Perceiving Neutral, Food and Money Related Stimuli.

Previous studies have shown that dispositional mindfulness is positively associated with cognitive performance, including the ability to stop behavioral actions (formally called inhibitory control). However, some studies suggest that the relationship may be context dependent. The current study addressed previous limitations and focused on the role of reward context regarding the relationship between mindfulness and inhibitory control. Seventy-five participants (31 men, 44 women) between 18-50 years old (M = 30, SD = 9) were included in the final sample. Participants filled out a self-report measure of mindfulness and performed a stop signal task with three conditions that varied in terms of reward context. In the neutral condition, go stimuli (stimuli to which a response was required) were letters; in the food and money condition, these were pictures of food and money, respectively. Results showed that inhibitory control was reduced in the money condition relative to the neutral condition (p = 0.012). Mindfulness was positively correlated with inhibitory control, but only in the money condition (p = 0.001). However, results might differ when inhibitory control is required while perceiving a learned reward-related stimulus. The latter represents an open question for future research.

Haloperidol 2 mg impairs inhibition but not visuospatial attention.

RATIONALE: The dopaminergic system has been implicated in visuospatial attention and inhibition, but the exact role has yet to be elucidated. Scarce literature suggests that attenuation of dopaminergic neurotransmission negatively affects attentional focusing and inhibition. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that evaluated the effect of dopaminergic antagonism on stopping performance. METHODS: Dopaminergic neurotransmission was attenuated in 28 healthy male participants by using 2 mg haloperidol. A repeated-measures placebo-controlled crossover design was implemented, and performance indices of attention and inhibition were assessed in the visual spatial cueing task (VSC) and stop signal task (SST). Additionally, the effect of haloperidol on motoric parameters was assessed. It was expected that haloperidol as contrasted to placebo would result in a reduction of the "validity effect," the benefit of valid cueing as opposed to invalid cueing of a target in terms of reaction time. Furthermore, an increase in stop signal reaction time (SSRT) in the SST was expected. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Results partially confirmed the hypothesis. Haloperidol negatively affected inhibitory motor control in the SST as indexed by SSRT, but there were no indications that haloperidol affected bias or disengagement in the VSC task as indicated by a lack of an effect on RTs. Pertaining to secondary parameters, motor activity increased significantly under haloperidol. Haloperidol negatively affected reaction time variability and errors in both tasks, as well as omissions in the SST, indicating a decreased sustained attention, an increase in premature responses, and an increase in lapses of attention, respectively.