Color naming deficits and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A retinal dopaminergic hypothesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD) have unexplained difficulties on tasks requiring speeded processing of colored stimuli. Color vision mechanisms, particularly short-wavelength (blue-yellow) pathways, are highly sensitive to various diseases, toxins and drugs that alter dopaminergic neurotransmission. Thus, slow color processing might reflect subtle impairments in the perceptual encoding stage of stimulus color, which arise from hypodopaminergic functioning. PRESENTATION OF HYPOTHESES: 1) Color perception of blue-yellow (but not red-green) stimuli is impaired in ADHD as a result of deficient retinal dopamine; 2) Impairments in the blue-yellow color mechanism in ADHD contribute to poor performance on speeded color naming tasks that include a substantial proportion of blue-yellow stimuli; and 3) Methylphenidate increases central dopamine and is also believed to increase retinal dopamine, thereby normalizing blue-yellow color perception, which in turn improves performance on the speeded color naming tasks. TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS: Requires three approaches, including:1) direct assessment of color perception in individuals with ADHD to determine whether blue-yellow color perception is selectively impaired; 2) determination of relationship between performance on neuropsychological tasks requiring speeded color processing and color perception; and 3) randomized, controlled pharmacological intervention with stimulant medication to examine the effects of enhancing central dopamine on color perception and task performance IMPLICATIONS OF HYPOTHESIS: If substantiated, the findings of color perception problems would necessitate a re-consideration of current neuropsychological models of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, guide psycho-education, academic instruction, and require consideration of stimulus color in many of the widely used neuropsychological tests.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".