Time Reproduction in Children With ADHD: Motivation Matters
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary goal of this study was to examine whether children with ADHD have a true deficit in subjective time sense, or whether their impairment reflects a motivational deficit. Thirty children with ADHD and 30 matched control children completed two versions of a time reproduction paradigm ("Regular" and "Enhanced") in which motivational level was manipulated by the addition of positive sham feedback and the prospect of earning a reward. A secondary goal was to investigate performance on measures of working memory and behavioural inhibition, and how those constructs relate to time reproduction in the context of Barkley's (1997a) model of ADHD. Children with ADHD performed significantly better on the motivating 'Enhanced' versus the Regular time reproduction paradigm, although they continued to perform significantly worse than controls on both tasks. Control children exhibited no reliable change in performance between versions of the task. Significant group differences were also observed on the working memory and behavioural inhibition tasks. We discuss the impact of motivation, working memory, and behavioural inhibition on time reproduction performance.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it