Electrophysiological Evidence For Sport Training Effects On Inhibitory Control: A Go/Nogo Study

Inhibitory control has been regarded as a remarkable and central feature ofhuman cognitive ability. However, relatively less work explores the relationshipbetween inhibition and experience, with some contradictions reported. On one hand,an influential behavioural twin study suggested that our inhibitory ability is innate,with individual differences in inhibition being almost entirely genetic in nature withlittle influence of experience. On the other hand, cognitive training research hasshown that individual inhibitory ability can improve as a result of training. Thisstudy aimed to examine the relationship between inhibition and experience. Wehypothesized that experience would (1) have its effects on individual inhibitory abilitybut only for experience related stimuli, and (2) be reflected by better behaviouralresults and different Electrophysiological processes.To achieve this, we manipulatedindependent variables with groups (athletes vs.controls) and tasks (experience vs. general), and examined behavioural performanceand ERPs during a modified Go/Nogo task.As part of previous Go/Nogo study, thebehavioural results in our study showed no significant effects, either.Instead, thedifference at neurophysiological level gives the space to discuss.(1) Within group,results indicated that, compared to the general stimuli (G-task), experiencedindividual showed reduced N2d amplitude and increased P3d amplitude and bothlatencies were shortened, while processing the experience related stimuli(E-task).However, there was no difference for control group.(2)Only in E-task, didexperience group show better inhibition than control group.According to the meaning of N2d, P3d and the similarity of stimuli in tasks,these findings suggest that (1) experience does affect inhibitory cognitive processes,experienced individuals could be more efficient in conflict detection and better able toput resources towards the motor related processing phase, and both two phases couldactive earlier.(2) The training effect could not transfer even the new stimuli is rathersimilar to what they experienced.We suggest the effect in our study is result from training-induced strongerconnection between different representations. These results suggest the existence ofspecific inhibition and domain-general inhibitory mechanisms. Furthermore, thefindings are extended to consider the transfer effect of inhibitory training and providethe further study direction.