Time perception deficits in attention‐deficit/ hyperactivity disorder and comorbid reading difficulties in child and adolescent samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our objective was to investigate time perception in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) with and without comorbid reading difficulties (RD) in child and adolescent participants. METHOD: In study 1, 50 children with ADHD (31 ADHD, 19 ADHD+RD) and age-matched healthy controls (n = 50) completed three psychophysical tasks: duration discrimination (target duration of 400 ms versus a foil duration), frequency discrimination (a control condition to evaluate general perceptual ability), and a duration estimation task using the method of reproduction for intervals of 400 ms, 2000 ms, and 6000 ms. Study 2 used the same tasks with an adolescent sample (35 ADHD, 24 ADHD+RD, 39 controls). RESULTS: In both studies, children and adolescents with ADHD and ADHD+RD displayed some impairments in duration discrimination and the precision with which they reproduced the intervals on the estimation task, particularly the shorter 400 ms interval. The most severe impairments tended to occur in the comorbid ADHD+RD group. No impairments were found on the frequency discrimination task. ADHD participants also displayed significant intra-individual variability in their performance on the estimation task. Finally, short-term and working memory, estimated full-scale IQ, and teacher report of hyperactivity/impulsivity were found to differentially predict performance on the time perception measures in the adolescent clinical sample. CONCLUSIONS: Deficits in duration discrimination, duration estimation, and intra-individual performance variability may have cascaded effects on the temporal organisation of behaviour in children and adolescents with ADHD and ADHD+RD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".