Withholding and canceling a response in <scp>ADHD</scp> adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Deficient response inhibition in situations involving a trade-off between response execution and response stopping is a hallmark of attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD). There are two key components of response inhibition; reactive inhibition where one attempts to cancel an ongoing response and prospective inhibition is when one withholds a response pending a signal to stop. Prospective inhibition comes into play prior to the presentation of the stop signal and reactive inhibition follows the presentation of a signal to stop a particular action. The aim of this study is to investigate the neural activity evoked by prospective and reactive inhibition in adolescents with and without ADHD. METHODS: Twelve adolescents with ADHD and 12 age-matched healthy controls (age range 9-18) were imaged while performing the stop signal task (SST). RESULTS: Reactive inhibition activated right inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) in both groups. ADHD subjects activated IFG bilaterally. In controls, prospective inhibition invoked preactivation of the same part of right IFG that activated during reactive inhibition. In ADHD subjects, prospective inhibition was associated with deactivation in this region. Controls also deactivated the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) during prospective inhibition, whereas ADHD subjects activated the same area. DISCUSSION: This pattern of activity changes in the same structures, but in opposite directions, was also evident across all phases of the task in various task-specific areas like the superior and middle temporal gyrus and other frontal areas. CONCLUSION: Differences between ADHD and control participants in task-specific and default mode structures (IFG and MPFC) were evident during prospective, but not during reactive inhibition.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".