Performance monitoring and response inhibition in anxiety disorders with and without comorbid ADHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anxiety disorder (ANX) is characterized by heightened arousal, psychosocial and academic difficulties, and comorbidity with other disorders, in particular, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The heightened arousal contributes to cognitive impairment by adversely affecting executive control of cognition. The nature of the effect on executive control is poorly understood. Research in this area could inform intervention, diagnostic, and etiological research. Our objective was to characterize children with ANX on measures of executive functioning, while controlling for comorbid ADHD. We compared children ages 6-14 with ANX (N=21), ADHD (N=78), ANX+ADHD (N=38), and normal controls (NC; N=40) on the stop task, a measure of performance monitoring and response inhibition. No difference was observed between NC and ANX groups in performance monitoring. Compared to the NC group, the three clinical groups showed inhibition deficits, and both ADHD and ANX+ADHD groups monitored less after responses. ANX was not associated with performance monitoring or inhibition deficits once comorbid ADHD was considered. This emphasizes the importance of controlling for comorbid ADHD in studies of cognition and anxiety.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".