Normal response inhibition in boys with Tourette syndrome
- Veit Roessner†1Email author,
- Björn Albrecht†1,
- Peter Dechent2,
- Jürgen Baudewig2 and
- Aribert Rothenberger1
© Roessner et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2008
- Received: 21 May 2008
- Accepted: 18 July 2008
- Published: 18 July 2008
Inhibitory deficits are often a matter of debate in the pathophysiology of Tourette syndrome (TS). Previous neuropsychological studies on behavioral inhibition revealed equivocal results.
To overcome existing shortcomings (e.g. confounders like medication status, comorbid conditions) we compared medication naïve boys (10–14 years) suffering exclusively from TS with age, gender and IQ matched healthy controls using a highly demanding Go/Nogo task that controls for novelty effects.
The performance did not differ between boys with TS and healthy boys.
In TS normal response inhibition performance as measured by a Go/Nogo task can be assumed. However, there might be neurophysiological abnormalities in TS possibly related to compensatory mechanisms to control for tics. Hence, further studies combining neuropsychological and neurophysiological methods (e.g. electroencephalography, fMRI) using the same strictly controlled design along the whole range of development and tic severity are recommended.
- Response Inhibition
- Inhibitory Control
- Tourette Syndrome
- Inhibitory Deficit
- Novelty Effect
Tourette syndrome (TS) is a neurodevelopmental disorder of childhood onset characterized by chronic motor and vocal tics. Although its etiology and pathophysiology are still unknown, there is increasing evidence for disruptions in the structure and function of cortico-striatal-thalamic-cortico (CSTC) neural circuitry. This altered functioning of CSTC circuitry including the prefrontal cortex might be associated with general problems of inhibitory control, not only of motor function, but also of cognitive and emotional regulation . Unfortunately, the large number of neuropsychological studies addressing inhibition in TS could not draw a clear picture (for a review see [1, 2]).
First, it has to be taken into consideration that there are separable types of inhibition, probably all with different neural substrates . However, there were inconsistencies between studies in TS even when they used the same task for measuring inhibitory control. For example, a flanker task did not show deficits in response inhibition in adults , but in children with 'pure' TS compared to a control group . Two studies using another test of response inhibition, an A-X version of the continuous performance task (CPT) revealed divergent findings in children with TS compared to healthy controls. One study found differences , the other not .
Second, all these inconsistencies might be attributable to several confounders. The uncontrolled psychiatric symptomatology often comorbid to TS like attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is thought to contribute mainly to found inhibitory deficits . Additionally, previous and actual medication as well as short- and long-term compensatory mechanisms due to voluntary tic-suppression might have confounded previous findings on response inhibition performance in TS.
Hence, there is consensus that response inhibition in TS merits a more thorough investigation of less heterogeneous samples to come to firmer conclusions . Because the a priori exclusion of confounders is the less biased method compared to post hoc statistical adjustment , we chose this approach to have the best ability to detect response inhibition deficits specific for TS per se. We applied a Go/Nogo task as one of the most common neuropsychological paradigms to investigate response inhibition in the motor domain [10, 11].
Normal performance in the Go/Nogo task has been found in children with TS without comorbid conditions  as well as in adults with TS (some of them with comorbid ADHD and/or OCD) . This is surprising as there are quite prominent differences between both versions of the Go/Nogo task applied.
For example in the task of Ozonoff et al.  the ratio of Go to Nogo stimuli is 50:50, whereas it is 83:17 in that of Hershey et al. . Frequent Go stimuli are needed to ensure a prepotent tendency to respond that must then be inhibited for Nogo stimuli. But relatively rare Nogo stimuli entail the problem that novelty effects of increased arousal and orientation could not be distinguished from inhibitory requirements . Hence, on the one hand a task with rare Nogo stimuli is needed to ensure that responses are prepotent and response inhibition is difficult, but on the other hand it has to control for the effects of stimulus probability . This is even more important in TS as patients were found to be impaired on tasks requiring the processing of novel stimuli [16, 17].
Hence, we progress the field of inhibitory control in TS in two points. First, we applied a more demanding Go/Nogo task than Ozonoff et al.  to detect inhibitory deficits that could possibly not be detected by their task. Additionally, the present Go/Nogo task controlled for the first time in TS research for the important confounding of novelty. Second, we included only medication naïve boys with 'pure' TS to avoid confounding effects of medication and psychopathology other than TS. To minimize the extent of compensatory mechanisms we included boys with a short history of tics. In accordance with previous studies on inhibitory control we expected impaired performance of the subjects suffering from TS compared to healthy controls in our highly demanding Go/Nogo task.
Sample description (Boys only)
N = 15
N = 20
Estimated Total IQ
Duration of tics (years) a
- Total problems
- Emotional symptoms
- Conduct Problems
- Peer Problems
- Prosocial Behavior
- Total problems
- Emotional symptoms
- Conduct Problems
- Peer Problems
- Prosocial Behavior
In order to ensure validity of the task and to avoid confounding by insufficient compliance, two boys from each group had to be excluded because of insufficient performance (< 80% correct Go responses and/or < 33% correct rejections in the Nogo condition). The exclusion-rate did not differ between groups (χ2 (1) = 0.1, p = .79).
Behavioral Task and Experimental Procedures
The Go/Nogo task consisted of three runs with 150 trials each and was similar to that used by Tamm et al. . White Go stimuli letters "X" (4/6 of all trials, i.e. frequent) and "A" (1/6, i.e. infrequent) as well as the Nogo stimuli letters "B" (1/6) were presented against a dark grey background in the centre of a 21" monitor at a viewing angle of approximately 2 degrees in a pseudo randomized order for 200 ms with an inter stimulus interval of 2000 ms. Subjects were instructed to press a button with the forefinger of their right hand to letters "X" and "A", but to withhold their response if a "B" occurred. Speed and accuracy were equally emphasized, and practice trials were administered as required.
Main dependent variables were (1) success rate (button press for Go stimuli "X", "A" and correct rejection of Nogo stimuli "B"), (2) response time for correct hits (RT of button press to Go stimuli) and (3) intra-individual variability of response time for correct hits (RT-SD). These were analyzed with repeated measures ANOVAs with within subjects factors "Run" (each of the three runs applied, which reflects time-on-task effects) and "Letter" (letters X, A, B, and thus Nogo or novelty effects) and between subjects factor "Group" (subjects suffering from TS vs. healthy controls). Since Go/Nogo performance is susceptible to developmental effects, all analyses were also conducted with age entered as a covariate. In order to correct for violations from sphericity, Greenhouse-Geisser ε and adjusted p-values are reported along with original degrees-of-freedom. Significant main effects were further explored using Sidak-adjusted post-hoc test. In case of interactions additional ANOVAS separately for each level of the respective factors were conducted. Significance level was set to 5%.
Go/Nogo-Task Performance (Boys only)
N = 15
N = 20
repeated measure ANOVA
(Sidak-adjusted Post-hoc tests)a
Success rate (%) b
Letter: F(2,66) = 247.3**, (X > B**, A > B**)
Reaction time of correct
responses (ms) b
Letter: F(1,33) = 66.8**, (A > X**)
Reaction-time of errors compared to correct
Go (A) (ms) f
Letter: F(1,33) = 10.8**, (A > B**)
Correct Go (A)
Error in Nogo (B)
Reaction-time variability (ms)
Letter: F(1,33) = 13.2**, (A > B**)
Run*Group: F(2,66) = 2.8+
Run*Letter: F(2,66) = 3.2*
RTs of correct responses were slower for "A" compared to "X" ("Letter" F(1,33) = 66.8, p < .01). Again, no effects of time on task or "Group" or any interactions reached significance.
Reaction-times of Nogo errors were faster than correct responses to novel Go stimuli (F(1,33) = 10.8, p < .01), but did not differ between groups (F(1,33) = 0.6, p = .42) nor show an interaction "Letter*Group" (F(1,33) = 0.1, p = .90).
Intra-individual RT-SD of correct responses was lower on letters "X" compared to "A" ("Letter" F(1,33) = 13.2, p < .01), but there were also an interaction "Run*Letter" (F(2,66) = 3.2, ε = .99, p = .05) and a trend for an interaction "Run*Group" (F(1,33) = 2.8, ε = .96, p = .07). The latter trend was disentangled by considering confidence intervals at p < .10. In the first run controls displayed higher RT-SD than boys with TS which reversed in the third block where subjects suffering from TS showed higher RT-SD; in the second run no group differences were found. No general main effects of "Group" were found (F(1,33) = 0.1, p = .86). Separate repeated measure ANOVAs for each Go stimulus revealed no effects for letter "A", but an interaction "Run*Group" for letter "X" (F(2,66) = 4.5, ε = .99, p = .02) that was accompanied by a trend for higher RT-SD for subjects suffering from TS in the last run only. All these results remained stable also after entering age as a covariate to test for developmental effects.
Using a Go/Nogo task we found no differences in response inhibition between drug naïve boys suffering from TS without any comorbid disorder and healthy controls of same age, gender and IQ. The high demanding Go/Nogo task applied here following Tamm et al.  controlled for the first time in TS research for novelty effects in the Go/Nogo task. Additionally, the inclusion of only boys with 'pure' TS who had never taken psychotropic medication is a further methodological progress of previous work . The higher scores in some of the SDQ scales of the boys with TS have no relevance since all are in the lower normal range. This indicates that there are no comorbid symptoms or diagnoses. This in turn raises the question if studying the minority of patients with 'pure' TS also allows conclusions concerning TS in general, because TS is frequently (up to 90%) co-existing with further psychiatric problems . In terms of the most frequently comorbid condition in TS, i.e. ADHD several studies on different domains (psychopathology, neuropsychology etc.) have shown that TS and ADHD co-occur in an additive manner [8, 27, 28]. Hence, it seems likely that 'pure' TS and TS comorbid with other conditions are very similar if not identical.
The fact that RTs to the infrequent Go stimuli "A" were slower than to the frequent Go stimuli "X" highlights the importance of controlling for novelty effects. Furthermore, the task used in this study is highly demanding as reflected by the higher percentage of false alarms (~60%) compared to that of the tasks in the studies of Ozonoff (~15%; ) and Hershey et al. (~20%; ). Nevertheless, the present results based on a TS sample excluding possible confounders like gender, medication and comorbidity are in line with previous less controlled studies which reported no group differences in Go/Nogo performance of children  and adults with TS . Thus they add evidence to the increasing base of knowledge that in 'pure' TS no deviances in neuropsychological task performance can be found except some few specific deficits. One of the latter might be a deficit of patients with TS in tasks requiring higher inhibition capacities . Another one might be indicated in the present study by a trend for group differences in time on task effects for RT-SD. However, these exploratory findings of time on task effects require replication by more appropriate task designs to allow interpretation.
However, it has to be noted that the severity of TS was moderate in our group as indicated by the TSSS  and SDQ parent- and self-rated scores . Hence, assuming a correlation between tic severity and inhibitory deficits one could speculate that patients with more severe tics might show performance deficits in inhibitory tasks. But this speculation is questioned by the findings of Mueller et al.  who showed that chronic suppression of tics results in an enhancement of the executive processes involved in inhibitory control. Hence, the question arises if more severe tics would result in a more efficiently trained inhibitory control than milder tics.
However, the absence of performance differences in a Stop-task between a group with TS and healthy controls seems to be in contrast to the differences in co-registered neurophysiological parameters between these groups during the same experiment. The process of response inhibition was related to an enhanced frontal brain electrical negativity and a more anterior scalp distribution of the Nogo-anteriorization component in TS . Similarly, Serrien et al.  interpreted an elevated frontomesial electroencephalographic coherence in TS as serving to compensate for diminished inhibitory control in a special Go/Nogo task.
Hence, compensatory mechanisms in TS to control for tics might lead to neurophysiological deviances but yield normal findings in neuropsychological performance on response inhibition in TS. To better understand the relationship between neuronal mechanisms of response inhibition and its neuropsychological performance in TS further studies combining neuropsychological and neurophysiological methods (e.g. electroencephalography, fMRI) using the same strictly controlled design along the whole range of development and tic severity are recommended.
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
- Stern ER, Blair C, Peterson BS: Inhibitory deficits in Tourette's syndrome. Dev Psychobiol. 2008, 50 (1): 9-18. 10.1002/dev.20266.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Como PG: Neuropsychological function in Tourette's Syndrome. Handbook of Tourette's syndrome and related tic and behavioral disorders. Edited by: Kurlan R. 2005, New York , Marcel Dekker, 237-252. 2Google Scholar
- Nigg JT: On inhibition/disinhibition in developmental psychopathology: views from cognitive and personality psychology and a working inhibition taxonomy. Psychol Bull. 2000, 126 (2): 220-246. 10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.220.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Channon S, Gunning A, Frankl J, Robertson MM: Tourette's syndrome (TS): cognitive performance in adults with uncomplicated TS. Neuropsychology. 2006, 20 (1): 58-65. 10.1037/0894-4188.8.131.52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Crawford S, Channon S, Robertson MM: Tourette's syndrome: performance on tests of behavioural inhibition, working memory and gambling. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2005, 46 (12): 1327-1336. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01419.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Shucard DW, Benedict RH, Tekok-Kilic A, Lichter DG: Slowed reaction time during a continuous performance test in children with Tourette's syndrome. Neuropsychology. 1997, 11 (1): 147-155. 10.1037/0894-4184.108.40.206.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sherman EM, Shepard L, Joschko M, Freeman RD: Sustained attention and impulsivity in children with Tourette syndrome: comorbidity and confounds. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1998, 20 (5): 644-657.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Roessner V, Becker A, Banaschewski T, Rothenberger A: Executive functions in children with chronic tic disorders with/without ADHD: new insights. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2007, 16 Suppl 1: 36-44. 10.1007/s00787-007-1005-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bigger JT: Issues in subgroup analyses and meta-analyses of clinical trials. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2003, 14 (9 Suppl): S6-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Johnstone SJ, Dimoska A, Smith JL, Barry RJ, Pleffer CB, Chiswick D, Clarke AR: The development of stop-signal and Go/Nogo response inhibition in children aged 7-12 years: performance and event-related potential indices. Int J Psychophysiol. 2007, 63 (1): 25-38. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2006.07.001.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kok A, Ridderinkhof KR, Ullsperger M: The control of attention and actions: current research and future developments. Brain Res. 2006, 1105 (1): 1-6. 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.03.027.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ozonoff S, Strayer DL, McMahon WM, Filloux F: Executive function abilities in autism and Tourette syndrome: an information processing approach. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1994, 35 (6): 1015-1032. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1994.tb01807.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hershey T, Black KJ, Hartlein J, Braver TS, Barch DM, Carl JL, Perlmutter JS: Dopaminergic modulation of response inhibition: an fMRI study. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2004, 20 (3): 438-448. 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.03.018.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dimoska A, Johnstone SJ: Effects of varying stop-signal probability on ERPs in the stop-signal task: do they reflect variations in inhibitory processing or simply novelty effects?. Biol Psychol. 2008, 77 (3): 324-336. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2007.11.005.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Smith JL, Johnstone SJ, Barry RJ: Movement-related potentials in the Go/NoGo task: the P3 reflects both cognitive and motor inhibition. Clin Neurophysiol. 2008, 119 (3): 704-714. 10.1016/j.clinph.2007.11.042.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Stebbins GT, Singh J, Weiner J, Wilson RS, Goetz CG, Gabrieli JDE: Selective Impairments of Memory Functioning in Unmedicated Adults with Gilles-De-La-Tourettes Syndrome. Neuropsychology. 1995, 9 (3): 329-337. 10.1037/0894-4220.127.116.119.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gironell A, Rodriguez-Fornells A, Kulisevsky J, Pascual B, Riba J, Barbanoj M, Berthier M: Abnormalities of the acoustic startle reflex and reaction time in gilles de la tourette syndrome. Clin Neurophysiol. 2000, 111 (8): 1366-1371. 10.1016/S1388-2457(00)00343-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Achenbach TM, Becker A, Dopfner M, Heiervang E, Roessner V, Steinhausen HC, Rothenberger A: Multicultural assessment of child and adolescent psychopathology with ASEBA and SDQ instruments: research findings, applications, and future directions. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2008, 49 (3): 251-275. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01867.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Walkup JT, Rosenberg LA, Brown J, Singer HS: The validity of instruments measuring tic severity in Tourette's syndrome. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1992, 31 (3): 472-477. 10.1097/00004583-199205000-00013.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sattler JM: Assessment of Children: WISC-III and WPPSI-R Supplement. 1992, San Diego , Jerome M. SattlerGoogle Scholar
- Wechsler D: Wechsler intelligence scale for children. 1991, San Antonio, TX , Psychological Corporation, 3rdGoogle Scholar
- Englert E, Jungmann J, Lam L, Wienand F, Poustka F: Die Basisdokumentation Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie. Spektrum. 1998, 27 (5): 129-146.Google Scholar
- Goyette CH, Conners CK, Ulrich RF: Normative data on revised Conners Parent and Teacher Rating Scales. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 1978, 6 (2): 221-236. 10.1007/BF00919127.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cooper J: The Leyton obsessional inventory. Psychol Med. 1970, 1 (1): 48-64.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tamm L, Menon V, Ringel J, Reiss AL: Event-related FMRI evidence of frontotemporal involvement in aberrant response inhibition and task switching in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2004, 43 (11): 1430-1440. 10.1097/01.chi.0000140452.51205.8d.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Freeman RD: Tic disorders and ADHD: answers from a world-wide clinical dataset on Tourette syndrome. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2007, 16 Suppl 1: 15-23. 10.1007/s00787-007-1003-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Roessner V, Becker A, Banaschewski T, Rothenberger A: Psychopathological Profile in Children with Chronic Tic Disorder and Co-existing ADHD: Additive Effects. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2007, 35 (1): 79-85. 10.1007/s10802-006-9086-z.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Roessner V, Banaschewski T, Fillmer-Otte A, Becker A, Albrecht B, Uebel H, Sergeant J, Tannock R, Rothenberger A: Color perception deficits in co-existing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and chronic tic disorders. J Neural Transm. 2008, 115 (2): 235-239. 10.1007/s00702-007-0817-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rankins D, Bradshaw JL, Georgiou-Karistianis N: The semantic Simon effect in Tourette's syndrome and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Brain Cogn. 2006, 61 (3): 225-234. 10.1016/j.bandc.2006.01.002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mueller SC, Jackson GM, Dhalla R, Datsopoulos S, Hollis CP: Enhanced cognitive control in young people with Tourette's syndrome. Curr Biol. 2006, 16 (6): 570-573. 10.1016/j.cub.2006.01.064.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Johannes S, Wieringa BM, Mantey M, Nager W, Rada D, Muller-Vahl KR, Emrich HM, Dengler R, Munte TF, Dietrich D: Altered inhibition of motor responses in Tourette Syndrome and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. Acta Neurol Scand. 2001, 104 (1): 36-43. 10.1034/j.1600-0404.2001.00308.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Serrien DJ, Orth M, Evans AH, Lees AJ, Brown P: Motor inhibition in patients with Gilles de la Tourette syndrome: functional activation patterns as revealed by EEG coherence. Brain. 2005, 128 (Pt 1): 116-125.PubMedGoogle Scholar