Methylphenidate Improves Stroop Naming Speed, But Not Response Interference, in Children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to investigate the effect of methylphenidate (MPH) on response interference, as measured by the Stoop Color and Word Test, in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Response interference is a core component of response inhibition that has been shown to be impaired in children with ADHD. METHODS: A clinic-referred sample of school-aged children with a confirmed Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.) diagnosis of ADHD and good reading skills (n = 31) completed the Stroop Color and Word Test in an acute, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial with three single fixed doses of MPH. RESULTS: MPH did not improve response interference on the Stroop Color and Word Test but did significantly improve color naming and word naming abilities. CONCLUSION: Response interference, as measured by the Stroop Color and Word Test, is not improved by MPH in children with ADHD. In addition, findings demonstrate strongly positive MPH effects on the highly effortful process of color naming, which has previously been demonstrated as impaired in children with ADHD. MPH was also shown to have a positive but smaller effect on word naming speed.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".