Tapping and Anticipation Performance in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to examine the precise timing of a motor response in a sample of adolescents with ADHD and comparison participants. 46 participants with ADHD (M age=15.6, SD=1.4; 40 boys) and 44 control participants (M age=15.3, SD=1.4; 40 boys) were recruited through a metropolitan hospital. Participants were administered a tapping task and an anticipation task. Adolescents with ADHD displayed significantly more intra-individual variability on the visual 1000-msec. frequency interval of the tapping task and displayed lower accuracy on the cued and uncued trials of the anticipation task than comparison participants. Intra-individual variability on the tapping task was correlated with intra-individual variability on the anticipation task within both the ADHD and control groups. These findings suggest that adolescents with ADHD have impairments in both the cognitive representation and motor production of the precise timing of a motor response.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".