Reactive inhibition speed and accuracy improve with age between 8 and 11 years, while proactive response slowing does not increase with age¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2–r3 · q2 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2026: baselines and conditions change

Subclaims¶

q2 i3 Stop-signal reaction time decreased with age (r = −0.38) and inhibition accuracy improved with age, with no sex differences. → Pas P. 2021 q2 i? Proactive response slowing was not associated with age (p = 0.09) or sex (p = 0.49). → Pas P. 2021 (2)

Evidence¶

Pas P. 2021¶

Pas P., Hulshoff Pol H.E., Raemaekers M., Vink M. (2021). Self-regulation in the pre-adolescent brain. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2021.101012

q2 · i3 · associational · r3

Behavioral regression across the cohort found SSRT "was significantly associated with age F(1, 636) = 104.84, p < 0.001 (r = −0.38)"; inhibition accuracy also improved with age (F(1, 636) = 26.67, p < 0.001). The printed r = −0.38 indicates a large effect.

"reactive inhibition latency (SSRT) was significantly associated with age F(1, 636) = 104.84, p < 0.001 (r = −0.38), but not with sex F(1, 637) = 3.08, p = 0.08, indicating that older children where faster at inhibiting responses than younger children."

Pas P. 2021 (2)¶

Pas P., Hulshoff Pol H.E., Raemaekers M., Vink M. (2021). Self-regulation in the pre-adolescent brain. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2021.101012

q2 · i? · associational · r2

In the same behavioral analysis, proactive slowing showed no age association: "This proactive response slowing was not associated with age F(1, 636) = 2.97, p = 0.09". No effect size was printed; equivalence was not tested.

"This proactive response slowing was not associated with age F(1, 636) = 2.97, p = 0.09, nor with sex F(1, 637) = 0.48, p = 0.49."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Inhibition relates to procedural skill in secondary-school children but to conceptual understanding in adults — related
• Pre-adolescent children already exhibit proactive inhibitory control, slowing responses as stop-signal probability increases — related
• Children aged 8–11 with higher parent-rated self-regulation show more proactive response slowing on a stop-signal anticipation task — related
• Adolescents showed faster, more accurate, and less variable performance than children, with reward effects on inhibition accuracy differing by age — related
• Higher self-regulation in pre-adolescent children is associated with stronger right mid frontal cortex activation during proactive inhibition — related
• Go-trial response times are slower during the stop-signal task than the no-tone task, with no diagnostic group difference — related
• Children adopt a more cautious response strategy (higher boundary separation) when intermittent stop trials are introduced — related
• Reward does not alter the speed or variability of response execution in either stop signal task — related
• Introducing intermittent stop trials does not change processing speed (drift rate) in children with or without ADHD — related
• SSRT was faster in the cancellation task than in the restraint task, supporting inhibition as a non-unitary construct — related
• Task-based inhibitory control (Stop Signal Task) improves curvilinearly from ages 11 to 15, with growth slowing around middle adolescence — related