Preparatory neural networks are impaired in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder during the antisaccade task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often display executive function impairments, particularly in inhibitory control. The antisaccade task, which measures inhibitory control, requires one to suppress an automatic prosaccade toward a salient visual stimulus and voluntarily make an antisaccade in the opposite direction. ADHD patients not only have longer saccadic reaction times, but also make more direction errors (i.e., a prosaccade was executed toward the stimulus) during antisaccade trials. These deficits may stem from pathology in several brain areas that are important for executive control. Using functional MRI with a rapid event-related design, adults with combined subtype of ADHD (coexistence of attention and hyperactivity problems), who abstained from taking stimulant medication 20 h prior to experiment onset, and age-match controls performed pro- and antisaccade trials that were interleaved with pro- and anti-catch trials (i.e., instruction was presented but no target appeared, requiring no response). This method allowed us to examine brain activation patterns when participants either prepared (during instruction) or executed (after target appearance) correct pro or antisaccades. Behaviorally, ADHD adults displayed several antisaccade deficits, including longer and more variable reaction times and more direction errors, but saccade metrics (i.e., duration, velocity, and amplitude) were normal. When preparing to execute an antisaccade, ADHD adults showed less activation in frontal, supplementary, and parietal eye fields, compared to controls. However, activation in these areas was normal in the ADHD group during the execution of a correct antisaccade. Interestingly, unlike controls, adults with ADHD produced greater activation than controls in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex during antisaccade execution, perhaps as part of compensatory mechanisms to optimize antisaccade production. Overall, these data suggest that the saccade deficits observed in adults with ADHD do not result from an inability to execute a correct antisaccade but rather the failure to properly prepare (i.e., form the appropriate task set) for the antisaccade trial. The data support the view that the executive impairments, including inhibitory control, in ADHD adults are related to poor response preparation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".