1. The Relationship Between
Inhibition and Anxiety
Results
Inhibition is an executive function involved in stopping
automatic behaviors, reigning in impulses, and maintaining
self-regulation (Diamond, 2012). Previous research shows
that anxiety in an individual can interfere with proper
inhibitory control. In addition, processing efficiency is
affected in high anxiety individuals due to an attentional bias
toward anxiety-provoking stimuli (Derakshan & Eysenck,
2009). High anxiety individuals have been found to use
compensatory strategies on a physiological level to maintain
performance effectiveness during inhibitory tasks (Berggren
& Derakshan, 2012). It is important to examine different
populations that may be affected by frequent stress,
specifically in relation to performance anxiety, to see if there
are also development compensatory strategies to deal with
the constant exposure. The primary goal of this study was to
examine whether higher levels of anxiety relate to
differences in processing efficiency on inhibitory tasks on
both a behavioral and electrophysiological level in both
performing musicians and non-performing musicians.
Researcher: Rachel Whittemore
Co-Sponsors: Dr. Lynn Winters & Dr. Nancy Zook
Discussion.
References
Ansari, T., & Derakshan, N. (2011). The neural correlates of impaired inhibitory control in
anxiety. Neuropsychologia, 49, 1146-1153. Retrieved October 6, 2014, from Neuropsychologia. Doi:
10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.01.019
Berggren, N., & Derakshan, N. (2012). Attentional control deficits in trait anxiety: Why you see them
and why you don’t. Biological Psychology, 92, 440-446. Retrieved October 6, 2014, from Biological
Psychology. Doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.03.007
Birk, J., Dennis, T., Shin, L., & Urry, H. (2011). Threat facilitates subsequent executive control during
anxious mood. Emotion, (11), 1291-1304.
Derakshan, N., & Eysenck, M. (2009). Anxiety, Processing Efficiency, And Cognitive
Performance. European Psychologist, 14(2), 168-176. DOI: 10.1027/1016-9040.14.2.168
Diamond, A. (2012). Executive Functions. Annual Review of Psychology,64, 135-168. Doi: 10.1146/
annurev-psych-113011-143750
Judah, M., Grant, D., Mills, A., & Lechner, W. (2013). The neural correlates of impaired attentional
control in social anxiety: An ERP study of inhibition and shifting. Emotion, 1096-1106. doi: 10.1037/
a0033531
This research was supported by an Undergraduate Research Support Grant from the School of
Natural and Social Sciences.
Procedure
After the informed consent was obtained, the experimenter began the 20-minute process of
hooking the participants up to the EEG. The participant’s forehead, temples, and mastoids
were cleaned with an alcohol prep pad. The same cleaned areas were then prepped with
NuPrep gel to help lower impedances. The cap was then secured and the left and right
mastoid electrodes (A1, A2) and left and right temple electrodes (X1, X2) were taped on.
Electrodes ground, FZ, FCZ, CZ, CPZ, PZ, C3, and C4 were then filled with electrode gel
and impedances were monitored for the lowest reading. Once all impedances were lowered,
the participant was left in the room awaiting instruction.
There was no difference between the groups in anxiety. However,
the accuracy of the Musician group remained stable across the
three blocks while the control group got slightly worse.
Possible limitations of this study consisted of technical
difficulties with the EEG apparatus, which resulted in loss of nine
participants’ data. STAI data were also missing for four
participants, which resulted in their exclusion from the study.
For future research, better control for levels of anxiety should
be used. The STAI and K-MPAI could be used as screening
measures, to select subjects based on their trait anxiety scores, or
state anxiety could be manipulated.
In light of the marginal interaction, it would be interesting to
examine performing musician’s performance effectiveness on
tasks to see if this effect can happen outside of the anxiety context.
v Performance on the X/O task was analyzed using a two-way analysis of variance for the effects
of Group (Musicians vs. Non-Musicians) and Stimulus (Frequent vs. Rare) on accuracy and on
reaction time. Results for accuracy scores show no main effect for Group, F(1, 36) = .902, ns;
there was no difference in accuracy between Musicians and Non-Musicians.
The participants then began the task with the
instructions for each block presented on the
screen that was controlled by the experimenter in
the next room. Upon completion of the tasks, the
participants then filled out the questionnaires that
were also counterbalanced. The subjects were
debriefed after the completion of the
questionnaire..
Method
Introduction
v Electroencephalography (EEG) used to measure the
P300 wave during the inhibitory task.
v For EEG procedure: EEG cap, NuPrep, Electrode gel,
syringes, alcohol prep pads, and hypoallergenic tape.
v A separate questionnaire for musician participants, the Kenny Music
Performance Anxiety Inventory (K-MPAI), was also distributed to also assess
self-reported measures of anxiety tailored to music performance.
v 38 participants, 28 Control Group, 10 Musician Group
(19F, 19M)
v Age range 18-27 (Mage = 20.39)
v Race/Ethnicity: Caucasians (n=19), African Americans (n=
7), Asian Pacific Islander (n= 5), Hispanic (n=4), and other
(n=3)
v Controls were recruited from an Intro to Psych course for
course credit; Musicians were volunteers recruited from
posters advertising the study.
v Left-handed participants and smokers were excluded from
the experiment.
Design
Participants
v 2x2 mixed model design
v The between subjects variable was Music Performer verses
Non-Music Performer. The within subjects variable was
Stimulus Type (Frequent vs. Rare).
Materials
v However, there was a marginal
interaction between accuracy and group,
F(2,72)= 2.47, p = .092. While non-
musician accuracy got slightly worse over
the course of the three blocks, musician
accuracy actually remained relatively
stable across the three blocks.
v There was no main effect for reaction time on the X/O task, F(1,36)= .090.
There was also no interaction between reaction time and group, F(1,36)= .
952. There was no main effect for Group, F(1,36)= .902, ns.
v There was no Group difference in State Anxiety, t(32), -.73, ns, or Trait
Anxiety, t(32), -.17, ns.
v X/O oddball task: This task presents a series of X’s (80
total) and O’s (20 total), where the participant must press
different keys for each corresponding letter.
v NeuroScan 4.3.1 was used to record electrode response during the
tasks
v The State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI)
questionnaire was included in this study. The STAI
consists of 40 questions measuring both state and
trait anxiety, to be measured on a 4-point likert scale