Delayed Response Improves Inhibitory Control in Low- and High-Impulsivity Adolescents: Effects of Emotional Contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to identify the effects of delayed response on inhibitory control in low- and high-impulsivity adolescents in the presence of an emotional context. Participants performed a Go/No-Go task in 4 conditions: a control context with and without delayed response, and a pleasant context with and without delayed response. The amplitudes and latencies of the N2 and P3 components were evaluated. The delay increased the number of correct inhibitions and omissions but decreased the number of correct responses and N2 and P3 amplitudes during inhibition. The high-impulsivity adolescents showed larger amplitudes in P3NoGo but shorter N2 latencies during the NoGo trials, and the opposite during the Go trials, as they required more processing time than the low-impulsivity adolescents to restart their motor responses. In conclusion, the delayed response did improve inhibitory control and, the beneficial effects of the delay were less pronounced in the high-impulsivity adolescents when the distraction of the pleasant stimuli was present.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".