Loading…
Refining the understanding of inhibitory processes: how response prepotency is created and overcome
Understanding (a) how responses become prepotent provides insights into when inhibition is needed in everyday life. Understanding (b) how response prepotency is overcome provides insights for helping children develop strategies for overcoming such tendencies. Concerning (a), on tasks such as the day...
Saved in:
Published in: | Developmental science 2012-01, Vol.15 (1), p.62-73 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c6265-cb74e6f676732b89c39e177ddaa98fed3e14f3ab29703770b75e0bbcd52614a3 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c6265-cb74e6f676732b89c39e177ddaa98fed3e14f3ab29703770b75e0bbcd52614a3 |
container_end_page | 73 |
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 62 |
container_title | Developmental science |
container_volume | 15 |
creator | Simpson, Andrew Riggs, Kevin J. Beck, Sarah R. Gorniak, Sarah L. Wu, Yvette Abbott, David Diamond, Adele |
description | Understanding (a) how responses become prepotent provides insights into when inhibition is needed in everyday life. Understanding (b) how response prepotency is overcome provides insights for helping children develop strategies for overcoming such tendencies. Concerning (a), on tasks such as the day‐night Stroop‐like task, is the difficulty with inhibiting saying the name of the stimulus due to the name being semantically related to the correct response or to its being a valid response on the task (i.e. a member of the response set) though incorrect for this stimulus? Experiment 1 (with 40 4‐year‐olds) suggests that prepotency is caused by membership in the response set and not semantic relation. Concerning (b), Diamond, Kirkham and Amso (2002) found that 4‐year‐olds could succeed on the day‐night task if the experimenter sang a ditty after showing the stimulus card, before the child was to respond. They concluded that it was because delaying children’s responses gave them time to compute the correct answer. However, Experiment 2 (with 90 3‐year‐olds) suggests that such a delay helps because it gives the incorrect, prepotent response time to passively dissipate, not because of active computation during the delay. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01105.x |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3405835</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ953740</ericid><sourcerecordid>916849281</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6265-cb74e6f676732b89c39e177ddaa98fed3e14f3ab29703770b75e0bbcd52614a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkU1v1DAQhiMEoqXwDxCyuHBK8EccJxyQqu3SgqpFQKVysxxn0vWStYOdtLv_Hoct4eOEJcujmXdee_wkCSI4I3G93mQkL0QqilJkFBOSxY15tnuQHM-FhzFmBUsF51-PkichbDDGOcPkcXJEKeWEVuw40Z-hNdbYGzSsAY22AR8GZZsp41pk7NrUZnB-j3rvNIQA4Q1auzvkIfTOBoh56N0AVu-RCUh7UAM0KFogdwteuy08TR61qgvw7P48Sa7eLa8WF-nlx_P3i9PLVBe04KmuRQ5FW4hCMFqXlWYVECGaRqmqbKFhQPKWqZpWAjMhcC044LrWDacFyRU7Sd4ebPux3kKjwQ5edbL3Zqv8Xjpl5N8Va9byxt1KlmNeMh4NXt0bePd9hDDIrQkauk5ZcGOQFSnKvKIlicqX_yg3bvQ2DjeJWE4YmUTlQaS9C8FDOz-FYDlhlBs50ZITLTlhlD8xyl1sffHnKHPjL25R8PwgAG_0XF5-qDgTOf79FXemg_1_3yvPll8WUxgN0oOBCQPsZgPlv8lIR3B5vTqXny7EiizOruWK_QDkeMbH</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>916341311</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Refining the understanding of inhibitory processes: how response prepotency is created and overcome</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection</source><source>ERIC</source><creator>Simpson, Andrew ; Riggs, Kevin J. ; Beck, Sarah R. ; Gorniak, Sarah L. ; Wu, Yvette ; Abbott, David ; Diamond, Adele</creator><creatorcontrib>Simpson, Andrew ; Riggs, Kevin J. ; Beck, Sarah R. ; Gorniak, Sarah L. ; Wu, Yvette ; Abbott, David ; Diamond, Adele</creatorcontrib><description>Understanding (a) how responses become prepotent provides insights into when inhibition is needed in everyday life. Understanding (b) how response prepotency is overcome provides insights for helping children develop strategies for overcoming such tendencies. Concerning (a), on tasks such as the day‐night Stroop‐like task, is the difficulty with inhibiting saying the name of the stimulus due to the name being semantically related to the correct response or to its being a valid response on the task (i.e. a member of the response set) though incorrect for this stimulus? Experiment 1 (with 40 4‐year‐olds) suggests that prepotency is caused by membership in the response set and not semantic relation. Concerning (b), Diamond, Kirkham and Amso (2002) found that 4‐year‐olds could succeed on the day‐night task if the experimenter sang a ditty after showing the stimulus card, before the child was to respond. They concluded that it was because delaying children’s responses gave them time to compute the correct answer. However, Experiment 2 (with 90 3‐year‐olds) suggests that such a delay helps because it gives the incorrect, prepotent response time to passively dissipate, not because of active computation during the delay.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1363-755X</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1467-7687</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1467-7687</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01105.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22251293</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Child Behavior ; Child development ; Child, Preschool ; Cognition ; Cognition & reasoning ; Communication ; Comprehension ; Female ; Humans ; Inhibition ; Inhibition, Psychological ; Intention ; Language ; Male ; Preschool children ; Psychomotor Performance - physiology ; Reaction Time ; Reaction Time - physiology ; Reproducibility of Results ; Responses ; Semantics ; Stroop Test ; Task analysis ; Young Children</subject><ispartof>Developmental science, 2012-01, Vol.15 (1), p.62-73</ispartof><rights>2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd</rights><rights>2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright Wiley Subscription Services, Inc. Jan 2012</rights><rights>2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2011</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6265-cb74e6f676732b89c39e177ddaa98fed3e14f3ab29703770b75e0bbcd52614a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6265-cb74e6f676732b89c39e177ddaa98fed3e14f3ab29703770b75e0bbcd52614a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ953740$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22251293$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Simpson, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Riggs, Kevin J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beck, Sarah R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gorniak, Sarah L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Yvette</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abbott, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diamond, Adele</creatorcontrib><title>Refining the understanding of inhibitory processes: how response prepotency is created and overcome</title><title>Developmental science</title><addtitle>Dev Sci</addtitle><description>Understanding (a) how responses become prepotent provides insights into when inhibition is needed in everyday life. Understanding (b) how response prepotency is overcome provides insights for helping children develop strategies for overcoming such tendencies. Concerning (a), on tasks such as the day‐night Stroop‐like task, is the difficulty with inhibiting saying the name of the stimulus due to the name being semantically related to the correct response or to its being a valid response on the task (i.e. a member of the response set) though incorrect for this stimulus? Experiment 1 (with 40 4‐year‐olds) suggests that prepotency is caused by membership in the response set and not semantic relation. Concerning (b), Diamond, Kirkham and Amso (2002) found that 4‐year‐olds could succeed on the day‐night task if the experimenter sang a ditty after showing the stimulus card, before the child was to respond. They concluded that it was because delaying children’s responses gave them time to compute the correct answer. However, Experiment 2 (with 90 3‐year‐olds) suggests that such a delay helps because it gives the incorrect, prepotent response time to passively dissipate, not because of active computation during the delay.</description><subject>Child Behavior</subject><subject>Child development</subject><subject>Child, Preschool</subject><subject>Cognition</subject><subject>Cognition & reasoning</subject><subject>Communication</subject><subject>Comprehension</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Inhibition</subject><subject>Inhibition, Psychological</subject><subject>Intention</subject><subject>Language</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Preschool children</subject><subject>Psychomotor Performance - physiology</subject><subject>Reaction Time</subject><subject>Reaction Time - physiology</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Responses</subject><subject>Semantics</subject><subject>Stroop Test</subject><subject>Task analysis</subject><subject>Young Children</subject><issn>1363-755X</issn><issn>1467-7687</issn><issn>1467-7687</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7SW</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkU1v1DAQhiMEoqXwDxCyuHBK8EccJxyQqu3SgqpFQKVysxxn0vWStYOdtLv_Hoct4eOEJcujmXdee_wkCSI4I3G93mQkL0QqilJkFBOSxY15tnuQHM-FhzFmBUsF51-PkichbDDGOcPkcXJEKeWEVuw40Z-hNdbYGzSsAY22AR8GZZsp41pk7NrUZnB-j3rvNIQA4Q1auzvkIfTOBoh56N0AVu-RCUh7UAM0KFogdwteuy08TR61qgvw7P48Sa7eLa8WF-nlx_P3i9PLVBe04KmuRQ5FW4hCMFqXlWYVECGaRqmqbKFhQPKWqZpWAjMhcC044LrWDacFyRU7Sd4ebPux3kKjwQ5edbL3Zqv8Xjpl5N8Va9byxt1KlmNeMh4NXt0bePd9hDDIrQkauk5ZcGOQFSnKvKIlicqX_yg3bvQ2DjeJWE4YmUTlQaS9C8FDOz-FYDlhlBs50ZITLTlhlD8xyl1sffHnKHPjL25R8PwgAG_0XF5-qDgTOf79FXemg_1_3yvPll8WUxgN0oOBCQPsZgPlv8lIR3B5vTqXny7EiizOruWK_QDkeMbH</recordid><startdate>201201</startdate><enddate>201201</enddate><creator>Simpson, Andrew</creator><creator>Riggs, Kevin J.</creator><creator>Beck, Sarah R.</creator><creator>Gorniak, Sarah L.</creator><creator>Wu, Yvette</creator><creator>Abbott, David</creator><creator>Diamond, Adele</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley-Blackwell</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201201</creationdate><title>Refining the understanding of inhibitory processes: how response prepotency is created and overcome</title><author>Simpson, Andrew ; Riggs, Kevin J. ; Beck, Sarah R. ; Gorniak, Sarah L. ; Wu, Yvette ; Abbott, David ; Diamond, Adele</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c6265-cb74e6f676732b89c39e177ddaa98fed3e14f3ab29703770b75e0bbcd52614a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Child Behavior</topic><topic>Child development</topic><topic>Child, Preschool</topic><topic>Cognition</topic><topic>Cognition & reasoning</topic><topic>Communication</topic><topic>Comprehension</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Inhibition</topic><topic>Inhibition, Psychological</topic><topic>Intention</topic><topic>Language</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Preschool children</topic><topic>Psychomotor Performance - physiology</topic><topic>Reaction Time</topic><topic>Reaction Time - physiology</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Responses</topic><topic>Semantics</topic><topic>Stroop Test</topic><topic>Task analysis</topic><topic>Young Children</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Simpson, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Riggs, Kevin J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beck, Sarah R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gorniak, Sarah L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Yvette</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abbott, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diamond, Adele</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Developmental science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Simpson, Andrew</au><au>Riggs, Kevin J.</au><au>Beck, Sarah R.</au><au>Gorniak, Sarah L.</au><au>Wu, Yvette</au><au>Abbott, David</au><au>Diamond, Adele</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ953740</ericid><atitle>Refining the understanding of inhibitory processes: how response prepotency is created and overcome</atitle><jtitle>Developmental science</jtitle><addtitle>Dev Sci</addtitle><date>2012-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>62</spage><epage>73</epage><pages>62-73</pages><issn>1363-755X</issn><issn>1467-7687</issn><eissn>1467-7687</eissn><abstract>Understanding (a) how responses become prepotent provides insights into when inhibition is needed in everyday life. Understanding (b) how response prepotency is overcome provides insights for helping children develop strategies for overcoming such tendencies. Concerning (a), on tasks such as the day‐night Stroop‐like task, is the difficulty with inhibiting saying the name of the stimulus due to the name being semantically related to the correct response or to its being a valid response on the task (i.e. a member of the response set) though incorrect for this stimulus? Experiment 1 (with 40 4‐year‐olds) suggests that prepotency is caused by membership in the response set and not semantic relation. Concerning (b), Diamond, Kirkham and Amso (2002) found that 4‐year‐olds could succeed on the day‐night task if the experimenter sang a ditty after showing the stimulus card, before the child was to respond. They concluded that it was because delaying children’s responses gave them time to compute the correct answer. However, Experiment 2 (with 90 3‐year‐olds) suggests that such a delay helps because it gives the incorrect, prepotent response time to passively dissipate, not because of active computation during the delay.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>22251293</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01105.x</doi><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1363-755X |
ispartof | Developmental science, 2012-01, Vol.15 (1), p.62-73 |
issn | 1363-755X 1467-7687 1467-7687 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3405835 |
source | Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection; ERIC |
subjects | Child Behavior Child development Child, Preschool Cognition Cognition & reasoning Communication Comprehension Female Humans Inhibition Inhibition, Psychological Intention Language Male Preschool children Psychomotor Performance - physiology Reaction Time Reaction Time - physiology Reproducibility of Results Responses Semantics Stroop Test Task analysis Young Children |
title | Refining the understanding of inhibitory processes: how response prepotency is created and overcome |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T16%3A20%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Refining%20the%20understanding%20of%20inhibitory%20processes:%20how%20response%20prepotency%20is%20created%20and%20overcome&rft.jtitle=Developmental%20science&rft.au=Simpson,%20Andrew&rft.date=2012-01&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=62&rft.epage=73&rft.pages=62-73&rft.issn=1363-755X&rft.eissn=1467-7687&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01105.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E916849281%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c6265-cb74e6f676732b89c39e177ddaa98fed3e14f3ab29703770b75e0bbcd52614a3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=916341311&rft_id=info:pmid/22251293&rft_ericid=EJ953740&rfr_iscdi=true |