Preliminary Evidence of Beneficial Effects of Methylphenidate on Listening Comprehension in Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The effect of methylphenidate (MPH) on listening comprehension for information passages, and on working memory, was examined in a clinical sample of 16 children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHOD: Drug effects on comprehension of spoken language at the levels of single sentences and passages, and on verbal and visual-spatial working memory (WM) skills were assessed over a 4-day placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover treatment trial of MPH at low, medium, and high doses. Concurrent behavior ratings were also completed. Data were analyzed at both group and individual levels; individual improvements using average change scores were analyzed to explore interrelationships among comprehension, WM, and behavioral responses to MPH. RESULTS: There was a significant effect of drug on comprehension of inferences from challenging listening passages (F = 3.1, p ,0.05), and on visual-spatial working memory performance (F = 3.3, p ,0.05), with significant linear dose-response relationships evident for both domains. Individual improvements in comprehension using averaged placebo-dose change scores were not related to improvements in behavior with MPH, or to improvements in WM in this sample. CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide preliminary evidence that MPH affects higher-level language comprehension skills, which require sustained attention and mental effort. If generalizable to classroom listening skills, these findings have implications for clinicians and teachers involved with children with ADHD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".