ArticlePloS one2026
Revisiting the relationship between impulsivity, apathy, and action control: Bayesian inference from a stop-signal task study.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Apathy and impulsivity are multidimensional constructs that shape goal-directed behavior. Although the motivational dopaminergic spectrum hypothesis frames them as opposing ends of a single continuum, questionnaire-based studies consistently show that they positively co-occur in both healthy and clinical populations. An emerging theoretical resolution of this paradox is that apathy and impulsivity relate to distinct components of goal-directed behavior, with co-occurrence potentially arising from domain-general factors and/or partially overlapping neurophysiological networks. Here, we examined this proposal in the domain of action control using the stop-signal task, which provides separable indices of action inhibition (stop-signal response time, SSRT) and action initiation (go response time, goRT) within the independent race model. Based on prior findings and theoretical considerations, we expected SSRT to covary with urgency-related impulsivity and goRT with action-initiation apathy. A large sample of healthy young adults (N = 144) completed a stop-signal task implemented in accordance with consensus recommendations, alongside validated multidimensional measures of impulsivity (UPPS-P impulsive behavior scale) and apathy (Lille Apathy Rating Scale). Bayesian analyses replicated a positive association between global apathy and impulsivity scores. However, SSRT was not associated with urgency, and goRT was not associated with action-initiation apathy, with moderate evidence for the null. Additional exploratory analyses provided moderate evidence against the majority of correlations between stop-signal indices and the remaining scale dimensions, including global scores. Thus, stop-signal indices did not dissociate apathy and impulsivity in action control, highlighting limits of task-based accounts of their co-occurrence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.