Stimulus-response incompatibility effects on event-related potentials in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to test the hypothesis of a response choice deficit in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) children, event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded from 30 scalp electrodes in 21 ADHD and 21 normal boys during a spatial stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) task. ADHD children made fewer correct responses than control children, but did not show a larger incompatibility effect on response speed and accuracy. In ERPs, ADHD children had longer N1 latency and larger condition effect on the frontal N2, which would reflect a greater frontal involvement for the correct responses. The ADHD group who performed the SRC task first showed a larger condition effect on an early occipital P3 only, while the ADHD group who performed the SRC task second showed a larger condition effect on a later central P650 component and on a late parietal NSW, as compared with normal controls. These results suggest strategic differences in information processing in ADHD children, rather than a specific deficit.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".