Periodic Reporting for period 4 - Ctrl-ImpAct (Control of impulsive action)
Período documentado: 2022-12-01 hasta 2024-05-31
People with good executive control can regulate their actions and think ahead. Failures to regulate impulsive actions are linked to various clinical and behavioural disorders. So, understanding impulse control and how to improve it could help individuals and society. But many questions still need to be answered. This is because people focus on how to stop themselves from acting and on practising actions. To make progress, we need new models that link different aspects of impulsive action and executive control. The research programme aims to answer five key questions. (1) Can new impulsive actions happen during preparation?; (2) What role do negative events play in impulsive actions?; (3) How does learning affect impulsive behaviour?; (4) When are impulsive actions (dys)functional?; and (5) How is state impulsivity linked to trait impulsivity? To answer these questions, we used special behavioural tests, neuroscience techniques, physiological measures, mathematical models and animal models. Several key findings emerged from the project.
Self-paced preparation is a reliable predictor of accurate performance across different age groups, but this effect is context specific. People also gamble faster after losing. This behaviour has also been seen in real-life gambling and in animals, suggesting it is common. These findings contradict several theories of action control, but are consistent with theories focusing on the appraisal of negative events and with (non-human) work on frustration. The role of early life learning in action control has been investigated across species, with results suggesting that both ancestral environment (explaining differences between species) and current environment (explaining individual differences within species) play a critical role. Across species, we also found that impulsivity was found to be functional in certain contexts, particularly when the costs of preparation and control outweigh the benefits. No consistent relationship has been found between state and trait impulsivity, raising questions about current preclinical models. Studies in birds have highlighted the influence of the early postnatal and prenatal environment on trait impulsivity.
Overall, this work will allow us to further develop detailed, multifaceted models that can explain impulsivity and control across time and space. Ultimately, our cross-species approach will also contribute to a better understanding of the causes of individual differences in impulsivity and the many behavioural problems associated with impulse control deficits.
Self-paced preparation is a reliable predictor of accurate performance across different age groups, but this effect is context specific. People also gamble faster after losing. This behaviour has also been seen in real-life gambling and in animals, suggesting it is common. These findings contradict several theories of action control, but are consistent with theories focusing on the appraisal of negative events and with (non-human) work on frustration. The role of early life learning in action control has been investigated across species, with results suggesting that both ancestral environment (explaining differences between species) and current environment (explaining individual differences within species) play a critical role. Across species, we also found that impulsivity was found to be functional in certain contexts, particularly when the costs of preparation and control outweigh the benefits. No consistent relationship has been found between state and trait impulsivity, raising questions about current preclinical models. Studies in birds have highlighted the influence of the early postnatal and prenatal environment on trait impulsivity.
Overall, this work will allow us to further develop detailed, multifaceted models that can explain impulsivity and control across time and space. Ultimately, our cross-species approach will also contribute to a better understanding of the causes of individual differences in impulsivity and the many behavioural problems associated with impulse control deficits.
Our project aimed to understand impulsive actions through five main areas of investigation:
WP1: Our results show that impulsivity can arise at task prepartion stages. This is true for both adults and young children. However, task preparation is context-specific and partly based on a cost-benefit analysis, which may explain why people react impulsively in some situations but not in others.
WP2: Our research showed that people tend to act more quickly after negative outcomes. This may be related to 'frustration'. We have even observed similar behaviour in animals, suggesting a broader biological basis for this response.
WP3: Initially, we struggled to link learning to the origins of impulsive actions. However, we shifted our focus to studying how early life learning influences impulsivity in birds. We found that early experiences significantly shape action control, influenced by both ancestral and current environments.
WP4: We found impulsivity can be beneficial when careful preparation or control of actions is not practical or advantageous. Crucially, this also requires new definitions of impulsivity in which the outcome or functionality of an action is no longer used to define the type of action.
WP5: Our results suggest that there is no consistent link between state vs. trait impulsivity, challenging preclinical models of impulsivity. We also investigated how the prenatal and postnatal environment influences impulsivity in birds, providing valuable insights into stable individual differences.
Overall, we used a variety of methods, including behavioural experiments, neuroscientific approaches and large-scale tracking of birds, to provide new insights into the nature of impulsivity and its underlying mechanisms. This work has resulted in many publications (for academic and non-academic audiences) and has been covered by local, national and international media. It has also led to several partnerships and collaborations with non-academic partners, in particular to further investigate the impact of the early life environment on the development of cognition, which may have practical implications (e.g. for animal welfare or reintroduction programmes).
WP1: Our results show that impulsivity can arise at task prepartion stages. This is true for both adults and young children. However, task preparation is context-specific and partly based on a cost-benefit analysis, which may explain why people react impulsively in some situations but not in others.
WP2: Our research showed that people tend to act more quickly after negative outcomes. This may be related to 'frustration'. We have even observed similar behaviour in animals, suggesting a broader biological basis for this response.
WP3: Initially, we struggled to link learning to the origins of impulsive actions. However, we shifted our focus to studying how early life learning influences impulsivity in birds. We found that early experiences significantly shape action control, influenced by both ancestral and current environments.
WP4: We found impulsivity can be beneficial when careful preparation or control of actions is not practical or advantageous. Crucially, this also requires new definitions of impulsivity in which the outcome or functionality of an action is no longer used to define the type of action.
WP5: Our results suggest that there is no consistent link between state vs. trait impulsivity, challenging preclinical models of impulsivity. We also investigated how the prenatal and postnatal environment influences impulsivity in birds, providing valuable insights into stable individual differences.
Overall, we used a variety of methods, including behavioural experiments, neuroscientific approaches and large-scale tracking of birds, to provide new insights into the nature of impulsivity and its underlying mechanisms. This work has resulted in many publications (for academic and non-academic audiences) and has been covered by local, national and international media. It has also led to several partnerships and collaborations with non-academic partners, in particular to further investigate the impact of the early life environment on the development of cognition, which may have practical implications (e.g. for animal welfare or reintroduction programmes).
1. Broader focus on impulse control
Previous studies have mainly focused on reactive inhibitory control and well-practiced actions. In addition, most work focused on the negative aspects of impulsive action. We broadened this narrow focus by developing new models that integrate different aspects of impulsive action and executive control.
2. Innovative research questions and findings
a.We discovered that impulsive actions can occur during task preparation, contradicting previous research and highlighting the importance of proactive preparation, even in young children.
b. People act more quickly after gambling losses, a behavior also seen in animals. This broadens our understanding of impulsivity in real-life contexts.
c. Early life experiences shape action control significantly, influenced by both ancestral and current environments. This cross-species approach offers deeper insights into how learning affects impulsivity.
d. Our research demonstrated that impulsive actions can be beneficial in certain contexts, especially when the costs of preparation are high. This challenges traditional views and highlights the context-specific nature of impulsivity.
e. We found no consistent link between transient and stable impulsivity, challenging current preclinical models. Additionally, prenatal and postnatal environments influence impulsivity in birds, providing insights into stable individual differences.
3. Methodological and interdisciplinary innovations
a. We used a variety of methods including behavioural experiments, TMS & EEG, physiological measures and mathematical modelling to study impulsive actions. This comprehensive approach provided a multifaceted understanding of impulsivity.
b. We incorporated animal models and real-life gambling data to increase the ecological validity of our findings. Our large-scale tracking of birds added a unique dimension to the study of impulsivity.
c. We established a novel interdisciplinary research group at Ghent University, bridging cognitive and comparative psychology, behavioural ecology and wildlife health. This collaboration has led to new courses and research programmes that are advancing the field.
d. Our project has significantly advanced open science by making all research data and software publicly available, developing consensus guidelines for experimental methods, and promoting transparency and reproducibility. We have also led workshops to promote these practices within the scientific community.
Previous studies have mainly focused on reactive inhibitory control and well-practiced actions. In addition, most work focused on the negative aspects of impulsive action. We broadened this narrow focus by developing new models that integrate different aspects of impulsive action and executive control.
2. Innovative research questions and findings
a.We discovered that impulsive actions can occur during task preparation, contradicting previous research and highlighting the importance of proactive preparation, even in young children.
b. People act more quickly after gambling losses, a behavior also seen in animals. This broadens our understanding of impulsivity in real-life contexts.
c. Early life experiences shape action control significantly, influenced by both ancestral and current environments. This cross-species approach offers deeper insights into how learning affects impulsivity.
d. Our research demonstrated that impulsive actions can be beneficial in certain contexts, especially when the costs of preparation are high. This challenges traditional views and highlights the context-specific nature of impulsivity.
e. We found no consistent link between transient and stable impulsivity, challenging current preclinical models. Additionally, prenatal and postnatal environments influence impulsivity in birds, providing insights into stable individual differences.
3. Methodological and interdisciplinary innovations
a. We used a variety of methods including behavioural experiments, TMS & EEG, physiological measures and mathematical modelling to study impulsive actions. This comprehensive approach provided a multifaceted understanding of impulsivity.
b. We incorporated animal models and real-life gambling data to increase the ecological validity of our findings. Our large-scale tracking of birds added a unique dimension to the study of impulsivity.
c. We established a novel interdisciplinary research group at Ghent University, bridging cognitive and comparative psychology, behavioural ecology and wildlife health. This collaboration has led to new courses and research programmes that are advancing the field.
d. Our project has significantly advanced open science by making all research data and software publicly available, developing consensus guidelines for experimental methods, and promoting transparency and reproducibility. We have also led workshops to promote these practices within the scientific community.