Exploring the underlying mechanism of Autonomic Nervous Systems of impulsive action
Poster No:
2073
Submission Type:
Abstract Submission
Authors:
Yu-Hsuan Cheng1, Chih-Hsuan Teng1, Tsung-Han Yang1, Yun-Hsin Huang2, Nai-Shing Yen1,3
Institutions:
1Department of Psychology, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan, 2Department of Psychology, Fo-Guang University, Yi-Lan, Taiwan, 3Research Center for Mind, Brain, and Learning, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan
First Author:
Co-Author(s):
Nai-Shing Yen
Department of Psychology, National Chengchi University|Research Center for Mind, Brain, and Learning, National Chengchi University
Taipei, Taiwan|Taipei, Taiwan
Department of Psychology, National Chengchi University|Research Center for Mind, Brain, and Learning, National Chengchi University
Taipei, Taiwan|Taipei, Taiwan
Introduction:
Impulsive action is defined as the inability of an individual to withhold from making a certain response (Winstanley et al., 2006). While extensive physiological evidence has accumulated for impulsivity, inconsistent autonomic nervous system (ANS) results persist. For example, conflicting findings on excessive or insufficient activation of sympathetic nervous system (SNS) and impulsive behaviors contribute to ongoing discussions on ANS mechanisms (Aldrich et al., 2018; Peters et al., 2018). In addition, prior studies often measured ANS responses during task period. Few explored that in pre-task baseline and in post-task recovery periods. Thus our study aimed to examine the ANS mechanisms of impulse control through the SNS and parasympathetic nervous system (PNS). Specifically, we investigated cardiac pre-ejection period (PEP) in the SNS, indicative of cardiac contractility, and respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA) in the PNS, reflecting cardiac vagal control. The specific ANS measurements helped dissecting the mechanisms of impulsivity.
Methods:
A total of 52 students at National Chengchi University, Taiwan (age: M = 21.48, SD = 1.46; 17 males and 35 females) participated in this study. The entire experiment included a sitting baseline period, a behavioral task period, and a sitting recovery period. The task used in the experiment was the Differential Reinforcement of Low-Rate Responding 20 seconds (DRL-20s), comprising 6 behavioral sessions. Participants initiated the task with a spacebar press after a '+' prompt, responding to a yellow square. If the response interval exceeded 20 seconds, a green circle provided feedback; otherwise the screen remained unchanged. Reinforcement rules were learned through key presses. Behaviorally, the Efficiency Ratio (ER) was calculated, representing the number of key presses with IRT > 20s divided by the total key presses. Participants with an ER of 0% were defined as impulsive (I Group); others were non-impulsive (NI Group). The two-way ANOVAs with 2 Groups (Impulsive vs. Non-impulsive) as a between-subject variable and 8 Physiological stages (a baseline, six behavioral sessions, and a recovery period) as a within-subject variable were conducted to explore differences in PEP and RSA between I group and NI group across various stages.
·Figure 1. This figure depicts the experimental procedure of the Differential Reinforcement of Low-Rate Responding 20 seconds (DRL-20s).
Results:
Behaviorally, 31 individuals were reinforced (NI Group: mean ER = 38.91%), while 21 individuals were not (I Group: mean ER = 0%). In PEP, after excluding participants with their values > 3 SDs, 49 individuals (30 non-impulsive, 19 impulsive) remained. A significant interaction [F(7, 329) = 3.443, p = .001] revealed stable SNS regulation for the NI group across all stages. In contrast, the I group exhibited significant PEP differences, with weakened SNS contribution as the experiment progressed. By the S5 stage, PEP was marginally significantly slower than in S1 [p = .062], suggesting a decreasing SNS contribution for the I group. In RSA, after excluding participants with their values > 3 SDs, 44 individuals (26 non-impulsive, 18 impulsive) remained. A significant interaction [F(7, 294) = 2.821, p = .007] revealed the NI group's gradual decreasing in RSA withdrawal as the experiment progressed, reflecting better behavioral adaptation. However, the I group showed no significant differences in RSA amplitude between the baseline, task, and recovery periods. That is, no improvement in PNS regulation for the I group.
·Figure 2 (A). Changes in PEP and (B) Amplitude changes in RSA of physiological measurement across all stages between impulsive (I) and non-impulsive (NI) groups.
Conclusions:
Our results showed that the non-impulsive group had better ER, stable SNS contribution, with PNS adaptation. In contrast, the impulsive group displayed worse ER, decreasing SNS contribution, and lack of PNS adaptation in DRL learning. Our study implied that the inability to sustain SNS effort and the lack of PNS adaptation predicted impulsive behavior.
Higher Cognitive Functions:
Executive Function, Cognitive Control and Decision Making
Motor Behavior:
Motor Planning and Execution 1
Physiology, Metabolism and Neurotransmission :
Physiology, Metabolism and Neurotransmission Other 2
Keywords:
Other - Impulsive action, Autonomic nervous system, Sympathetic nervous system, Parasympathetic nervous system, Cardiac pre-ejection period, Respiratory sinus arrhythmia
1|2Indicates the priority used for review
Provide references using author date format
Peters, J. R., Eisenlohr-Moul, T. A., Walsh, E. C., & Derefinko, K. J. (2018). Exploring the pathophysiology of emotion-based impulsivity: The roles of the sympathetic nervous system and hostile reactivity. Psychiatry research, 267, 368-375.
Winstanley, C. A., Eagle, D. M., & Robbins, T. W. (2006). Behavioral models of impulsivity in relation to ADHD: translation between clinical and preclinical studies. Clinical psychology review, 26(4), 379-395.