Behavioral sensitivity to changing reinforcement contingencies in attention‐deficit hyperactivity disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Altered sensitivity to positive reinforcement has been hypothesized to contribute to the symptoms of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). In this study, we evaluated the ability of children with and without ADHD to adapt their behavior to changing reinforcer availability. METHOD: Of one hundred sixty-seven children, 97 diagnosed with ADHD completed a signal-detection task in which correct discriminations between two stimuli were associated with different frequencies of reinforcement. The response alternative associated with the higher rate of reinforcement switched twice during the task without warning. For a subset of participants, this was followed by trials for which no reinforcement was delivered, irrespective of performance. RESULTS: Children in both groups developed an initial bias toward the more frequently reinforced response alternative. When the response alternative associated with the higher rate of reinforcement switched, the children's response allocation (bias) followed suit, but this effect was significantly smaller for children with ADHD. When reinforcement was discontinued, only children in the control group modified their response pattern. CONCLUSIONS: Children with ADHD adjust their behavioral responses to changing reinforcer availability less than typically developing children, when reinforcement is intermittent and the association between an action and its consequences is uncertain. This may explain the difficulty children with ADHD have adapting their behavior to new situations, with different reinforcement contingencies, in daily life.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".