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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Developmental science 2012-01, Vol.15 (1), p.62-73
Main Authors: Simpson, Andrew, Riggs, Kevin J., Beck, Sarah R., Gorniak, Sarah L., Wu, Yvette, Abbott, David, Diamond, Adele
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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