Good Holders, Bad Shufflers: An Examination of Working Memory Processes and Modalities in Children with and without Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine working memory (WM) modalities (visual-spatial and auditory-verbal) and processes (maintenance and manipulation) in children with and without attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The sample consisted of 63 8-year-old children with ADHD and an age- and sex-matched non-ADHD comparison group (N=51). Auditory-verbal and visual-spatial WM were assessed using the Digit Span and Spatial Span subtests from the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Integrated - Fourth Edition. WM maintenance and manipulation were assessed via forward and backward span indices, respectively. Data were analyzed using a 3-way Group (ADHD vs. non-ADHD)×Modality (Auditory-Verbal vs. Visual-Spatial)×Condition (Forward vs. Backward) Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Secondary analyses examined differences between Combined and Predominantly Inattentive ADHD presentations. Significant Group×Condition (p=.02) and Group×Modality (p=.03) interactions indicated differentially poorer performance by those with ADHD on backward relative to forward and visual-spatial relative to auditory-verbal tasks, respectively. The 3-way interaction was not significant. Analyses targeting ADHD presentations yielded a significant Group×Condition interaction (p=.009) such that children with ADHD-Predominantly Inattentive Presentation performed differentially poorer on backward relative to forward tasks compared to the children with ADHD-Combined Presentation. Findings indicate a specific pattern of WM weaknesses (i.e., WM manipulation and visual-spatial tasks) for children with ADHD. Furthermore, differential patterns of WM performance were found for children with ADHD-Predominantly Inattentive versus Combined Presentations. (JINS, 2016, 22, 1-11).
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".