Perceptual and motor inhibition in adolescents/young adults with childhood-diagnosed ADHD.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examined perceptual and motor inhibition in a longitudinal sample of adolescents/young adults who were diagnosed with ADHD in childhood, and as a function of the relative persistence of ADHD. METHOD: Ninety-eight participants diagnosed with ADHD in childhood were reevaluated approximately 10 years later. Eighty-five never-ADHD controls similar in age, IQ, sociodemographic background, and gender distribution served as a comparison group. Participants were administered a psychiatric interview and the Stimulus and Response Conflict Tasks (Nassauer & Halperin, 2003). RESULTS: Participants with childhood ADHD demonstrated slower and less accurate responses to both control and conflict conditions relative to the comparison group, as well as more variable responses in both conditions of the motor inhibition task; there was no specific effect of childhood ADHD on perceptual or motor inhibition. ADHD persisters and partial remitters did not differ in overall accuracy, speed or variability in responding, but relative to partial remitters, persisters demonstrated greater slowing in response to perceptual conflict. CONCLUSIONS: These findings are consistent with theories positing state regulation, but not inhibitory control deficits in the etiology of ADHD, and suggest that improved perceptual inhibition may be associated with better outcome for 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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".