Neural processing of working memory in adults with ADHD in a visuospatial change detection task with distractors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) are often characterized by deficits in working memory (WM), which manifest in academic, professional, and mental health difficulties. To better understand the underlying mechanisms of these presumed WM deficits, we compared adults with ADHD to their peers on behavioral and neural indices of WM. We used a visuospatial change detection task with distractors which was designed to assess the brain's ability to effectively filter out distractors from WM, in addition to testing for effects of WM load. Twenty-seven unmedicated adults with ADHD were compared to 27 matched peers on event-related potential (ERP) measures of WM, i.e., the contralateral delay activity (CDA). Despite severe impairments in everyday life functioning, findings showed no difference in deficits in behavioral tests of working memory for adults with ADHD compared to their peers. Interestingly, there were differences in neural activity between individuals with ADHD and their peers showing that the CDA of individuals with ADHD did not distinguish between high, distractor, and low memory load conditions. These data suggest, in the face of comparable behavioral performance, a difference in neural processing efficiency, wherein the brains of individuals with ADHD may not be as selective in the allocation of neural resources to perform a WM task.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".