Inhibitory Control Deficits in Children with Tic Disorders Revealed by Object-Hit-and-Avoid Task.
Journal
Neural plasticity
ISSN: 1687-5443
Titre abrégé: Neural Plast
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100883417
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
25
09
2020
revised:
01
06
2021
accepted:
08
06
2021
entrez:
26
7
2021
pubmed:
27
7
2021
medline:
19
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Tic disorders may reflect impaired inhibitory control. This has been evaluated using different behavioural tasks, yielding mixed results. Our objective was to test inhibitory control in children with tics through simultaneous presentation of multiple, mobile stimuli. Sixty-four children with tics (mean age 12.4 years; 7.5-18.5) were evaluated using a validated robotic bimanual exoskeleton protocol (Kinarm) in an object-hit-and-avoid task, in which target and distractor objects moved across a screen and participants aimed to hit only the targets while avoiding distractors. Performance was compared to 146 typically developing controls (mean age 13 years; 6.1-19.9). The primary outcome was the percentage of distractors struck. ANCOVA (age as covariate) showed participants struck significantly more distractors (participants without comorbid ADHD, 22.71% [SE 1.47]; participants with comorbid ADHD, 23.56% [1.47]; and controls, 15.59% [0.68]). Participants with comorbid ADHD struck significantly fewer targets (119.74 [2.77]) than controls, but no difference was found between participants without comorbid ADHD (122.66 [2.77]) and controls (127.00 [1.28]). Participants and controls did not differ significantly in movement speed and movement area. Just over 20% of participants with tics fell below the age-predicted norm in striking distractors, whereas fewer than 10% fell outside age-predicted norms in other task parameters. In children with tics (without comorbid ADHD), acting upon both targets and distractors suggests reduced ability to suppress responses to potential triggers for action. This may be related to increased sensorimotor noise or abnormal sensory gating.
Sections du résumé
Background
Tic disorders may reflect impaired inhibitory control. This has been evaluated using different behavioural tasks, yielding mixed results. Our objective was to test inhibitory control in children with tics through simultaneous presentation of multiple, mobile stimuli.
Methods
Sixty-four children with tics (mean age 12.4 years; 7.5-18.5) were evaluated using a validated robotic bimanual exoskeleton protocol (Kinarm) in an object-hit-and-avoid task, in which target and distractor objects moved across a screen and participants aimed to hit only the targets while avoiding distractors. Performance was compared to 146 typically developing controls (mean age 13 years; 6.1-19.9). The primary outcome was the percentage of distractors struck.
Results
ANCOVA (age as covariate) showed participants struck significantly more distractors (participants without comorbid ADHD, 22.71% [SE 1.47]; participants with comorbid ADHD, 23.56% [1.47]; and controls, 15.59% [0.68]). Participants with comorbid ADHD struck significantly fewer targets (119.74 [2.77]) than controls, but no difference was found between participants without comorbid ADHD (122.66 [2.77]) and controls (127.00 [1.28]). Participants and controls did not differ significantly in movement speed and movement area. Just over 20% of participants with tics fell below the age-predicted norm in striking distractors, whereas fewer than 10% fell outside age-predicted norms in other task parameters.
Conclusions
In children with tics (without comorbid ADHD), acting upon both targets and distractors suggests reduced ability to suppress responses to potential triggers for action. This may be related to increased sensorimotor noise or abnormal sensory gating.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34306065
doi: 10.1155/2021/8825091
pmc: PMC8270726
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
8825091Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Nicholas Cothros et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Brain. 2020 Mar 1;143(3):906-919
pubmed: 32125364
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2007 Nov;48(11):1071-9
pubmed: 17995482
Int Rev Neurobiol. 2013;112:35-71
pubmed: 24295617
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2020 Feb 13;17(1):18
pubmed: 32054511
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016 Oct 10;13(1):91
pubmed: 27724945
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1994 Jul;90(1):4-9
pubmed: 7976448
Psychiatry Res. 2006 Mar 30;141(3):315-20
pubmed: 16516306
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2017 Apr;56(4):304-312
pubmed: 28335874
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Oct 16;109(42):E2904-13
pubmed: 22869750
Brain Sci. 2018 Jul 06;8(7):
pubmed: 29986411
Mov Disord. 2018 Jul;33(6):937-946
pubmed: 29508917
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1989 Jul;28(4):566-73
pubmed: 2768151
Neuropsychology. 2015 Jul;29(4):658-65
pubmed: 25486384
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2018 May;88:170-176
pubmed: 29559228
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2017 Sep;80:240-262
pubmed: 28502600
Mov Disord. 2005 Feb;20(2):217-23
pubmed: 15382208
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2013 Jul;37(6):1050-62
pubmed: 23237884
Psychol Bull. 2000 Mar;126(2):220-46
pubmed: 10748641
Mov Disord Clin Pract. 2018 Nov 16;6(1):40-45
pubmed: 30746414
Trends Cogn Sci. 2015 Nov;19(11):655-665
pubmed: 26440120
Dan Med J. 2018 Apr;65(4):
pubmed: 29619935
J Neural Transm (Vienna). 2018 Apr;125(4):713-726
pubmed: 29234901
Mov Disord. 2010 Aug 15;25(11):1538-49
pubmed: 20589866
J Neurol Sci. 2008 Jun 15;269(1-2):96-104
pubmed: 18336839
J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2013 Sep;38(5):349-56
pubmed: 23820185
Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2007 Jun;16 Suppl 1:15-23
pubmed: 17665279
PLoS One. 2017 Jul 14;12(7):e0180812
pubmed: 28708864
Front Psychiatry. 2020 Feb 25;11:21
pubmed: 32161555
Annu Rev Neurosci. 2012;35:73-89
pubmed: 22524787
Psychol Bull. 2016 Oct;142(10):1111-1140
pubmed: 27504933