"My Brain Can Stop": An ERP Study of Longitudinal Prediction of Inhibitory Control in Adolescence

Abstract

We examined the longitudinal predictors of electrophysiological and behavioral markers of inhibitory control in adolescence. Participants were 63 adolescent boys who have been followed since birth as part of a prospective longitudinal study on the developmental pathways to attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). At 17 years of age, they completed the stop-signal task (SST) while electroencephalography (EEG) was continuously recorded. Inhibitory control was evaluated by the stop-signal reaction time (SSRT) as well as by the amplitude of the event-related potential (ERP) component of N2 during successful inhibition. We found that higher inattention symptoms throughout childhood predicted reduced amplitude (i.e., less negative) of the N2 in adolescence. Furthermore, the N2 amplitude was longitudinally predicted by the early precursors of child familial risk for ADHD and early childhood temperament. Specifically, father's inattention symptoms (measured in the child's early infancy) and child's effortful control at 36 months of age directly predicted the N2 amplitude in adolescence, even beyond the consistency of inattention symptoms throughout development. The SSRT was predicted by ADHD symptoms throughout childhood but not by the early precursors. Our findings emphasize the relevance of early familial and temperamental risk for ADHD to the prediction of a later dysfunction in inhibitory control.

Keywords: ADHD; ERP; N2; effortful control; familial risk; inhibitory control.

Figure 1

Grand average event-related potential waveforms of (A) successful stop (B) successful go of slow reaction times and (C) difference wave between a successful stop and successful slow go. Note. The shaded area represents standard error; the gray area delineates the N2 time window; the region of interest is marked with a circle on the electrode map at the top of the figure.

Figure 2

(A) An illustration of the event-related potential wave plot of the difference between a successful stop and successful slow go for adolescents with high and low concurrent inattention symptoms (group defined by the lower and upper quartile). The gray area delineates the N2 time window; the shaded area represents standard error. (B) Topographic maps of voltages on the scalp at the N2 time window (specifically at 200 ms after stop-signal presentation) for high (top) and low (bottom) concurrent inattention symptoms.

Figure 3

A longitudinal pathway from early risk to N2 amplitude at 17 years of age. Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001; Standardized estimates of the paths were used; significant paths are represented with solid lines, and insignificant paths are represented with dotted lines.

Figure 4

(A) An event-related potential wave plot of the difference between successful stop and successful slow go for adolescents with high and low ratings of childhood effortful control (group divided into lower and upper quartiles for illustration purpose). The gray area delineates the N2 time window; the shaded area represents standard errors. (B) Topographic maps of voltages on the scalp at the N2 time window (specifically at 200 ms after stop-signal presentation) for high (top) and low (bottom) childhood effortful control. (C) An event-related potential wave plot of the difference between a successful stop and successful slow go for adolescents with high and low paternal inattention symptoms (group defined by the lower and upper quartile). (D) Topographic maps of voltages on the scalp at the N2 time window for high (top) and low (bottom) paternal inattention.