The Journal of Korean Physical Therapy

  • 제32권2호
  • /
  • Pages.70-74
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 1229-0475(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2287-156X(eISSN)
대한물리치료학회 (The Korean Society of Physical Therapy)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Dose Motor Inhibition Response Training Using Stop-signal Paradigm Influence Execution and Stop Performance?

  • Son, Sung Min (Department of Physical Therapy, College of Health Science, Cheongju University)
  • 투고 : 2020.03.05
  • 심사 : 2020.04.14
  • 발행 : 2020.04.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose: This study examined whether 1) the motor inhibition response as cognitive-behavioral component is learning though a stop signal task using stop-signal paradigm, and 2) whether there is a difference in the learning degree according to imagery training and actual practice training. Methods: Twenty young adults (males: 9, females: 11) volunteered to participate in this study, and were divided randomly into motor imagery training (IT, n=10) and practice training (PT, n=10) groups. The PT group performed an actual practice stop-signal task, while the IT group performed imagery training, which showed a stop-signal task on a monitor of a personal computer. The non-signal reaction time and stop-signal reaction time of both groups were assessed during the stop-signal task. Results: In the non-signal reaction time, there were no significant intra-group and inter-group differences between pre- and post-intervention in both groups (p>0.05). The stop-signal reaction time showed a significant difference in the PT group in the intra-group analysis (p<0.05). On the other hand, there was no significant intra-group difference in the IT group and inter-group difference between pre- and post-intervention (p>0.05). Conclusion: These results showed that the motor inhibition response could be learned through a stop-signal task. Moreover, these findings suggest that actual practice is a more effective method for learning the motor inhibition response.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Duncan J, Owen AM. Common regions of the human frontal lobe recruited by diverse cognitive demands. Trends Neurosci. 2000;23(10): 475-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-2236(00)01633-7
  2. Goghari VM, MacDonald AW 3rd. The neural basis of cognitive control: Response selection and inhibition. Brain Cogn. 2009;71(2):72-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2009.04.004
  3. Aron AR. The neural basis of inhibition in cognitive control. Neuroscientist. 2007;13(3):214-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858407299288
  4. Miyake A, Friedman NP, Emerson MJ et al. The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex "frontal lobe" tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cogn Psychol. 2000;41(1):49-100. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
  5. Badry R, Mima T, Aso T et al. Suppression of human cortico-motoneuronal excitability during the stop-signal task. Clin Neurophysiol. 2009; 120(9):1717-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2009.06.027
  6. Barkley RA. Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions: Constructing a unifying theory of adhd. Psychol Bull. 1997; 121(1):65-94. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.121.1.65
  7. Verbruggen F, Liefooghe B, Vandierendonck A. Selective stopping in task switching: The role of response selection and response execution. Exp Psychol. 2006;53(1):48-57. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.53.1.48
  8. Verbruggen F, Logan GD. Models of response inhibition in the stop-signal and stop-change paradigms. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2009;33(5): 647-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.08.014
  9. Logan GD, Van Zandt T, Verbruggen F et al. On the ability to inhibit thought and action: General and special theories of an act of control. Psychol Rev. 2014;121(1):66-95. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035230
  10. Band GP, van der Molen MW, Logan GD. Horse-race model simulations of the stop-signal procedure. Acta Psychol. 2003;112(2):105-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(02)00079-3
  11. Verbruggen F, Logan GD. Response inhibition in the stop-signal paradigm. Trends Cogn Sci. 2008;12(11):418-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.005
  12. Alexander GE, Crutcher MD, DeLong MR. Basal ganglia-thalamocortical circuits: Parallel substrates for motor, oculomotor, "prefrontal" and "limbic" functions. Prog Brain Res. 1991;85:119-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(08)62678-3
  13. Rubia K, Smith AB, Taylor E et al. Linear age-correlated functional development of right inferior fronto-striato-cerebellar networks during response inhibition and anterior cingulate during error-related processes. Hum Brain Mapp. 2007;28(11):1163-77. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20347
  14. Enticott PG, Ogloff JR, Bradshaw JL. Response inhibition and impulsivity in schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res. 2008;157(1-3):251-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2007.04.007
  15. Geurts HM, Verte S, Oosterlaan J et al. How specific are executive functioning deficits in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism? J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2004;45(4):836-54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00276.x
  16. Aron AR, Poldrack RA. The cognitive neuroscience of response inhibition: Relevance for genetic research in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Biol Psychiatry. 2005;57(11):1285-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2004.10.026
  17. Kieling C, Goncalves RR, Tannock R et al. Neurobiology of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2008;17(2):285-307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chc.2007.11.012
  18. Verbruggen F, Logan GD, Stevens MA. Stop-it: Windows executable software for the stop-signal paradigm. Behav Res Methods. 2008;40(2): 479-83. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.2.479
  19. Chikazoe J, Jimura K, Hirose S et al. Preparation to inhibit a response complements response inhibition during performance of a stop-signal task. J Neurosci. 2009;29(50):15870-7. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3645-09.2009
  20. Verbruggen F, Logan GD. Automaticity of cognitive control: Goal priming in response-inhibition paradigms. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2009;35(5):1381-8. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016645
  21. Verbruggen F, Logan GD. Proactive adjustments of response strategies in the stop-signal paradigm. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2009; 35(3):835-54. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012726
  22. Guillot A, Collet C. Contribution from neurophysiological and psychological methods to the study of motor imagery. Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 2005;50(2):387-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresrev.2005.09.004
  23. Solodkin A, Hlustik P, Chen EE et al. Fine modulation in network activation during motor execution and motor imagery. Cereb Cortex. 2004;14(11):1246-55. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhh086
  24. Mendoza D, Wichman H. "Inner" darts: Effects of mental practice on performance of dart throwing. Percept Mot Skills. 1978;47(3 Pt 2):1195-9. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1978.47.3f.1195
  25. Kim CS, Yeo SS, Park SY. The effects of motor learning through the mental imagery training on task performance and motor learning component. Journal of Special Education & Rehabilitation Science. 2010;49(4): 221-36.
  26. Richard Schmidt TL. Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis.4th ed. Human kinetics, 2005.
  27. Wilson PH, Adams IL, Caeyenberghs K et al. Motor imagery training enhances motor skill in children with dcd: A replication study. Res Dev Disabil. 2016;57:54-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2016.06.014
  28. Nyberg L, Eriksson J, Larsson A et al. Learning by doing versus learning by thinking: An fmri study of motor and mental training. Neuropsychologia. 2006;44(5):711-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.08.006
  29. Bonnet M, Decety J, Jeannerod M et al. Mental simulation of an action modulates the excitability of spinal reflex pathways in man. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 1997;5(3):221-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(96)00072-9
  30. Seger CA. Implicit learning. Psychol Bull. 1994;115(2):163-96. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.163

피인용 문헌

  1. The Effect of Type of Communication by Physical Therapists on Patient Satisfaction and Revisit Intention vol.33, pp.5, 2020, https://doi.org/10.18857/jkpt.2021.33.5.245