Adult patients with ADHD differ from healthy controls in implicit, but not explicit, emotion regulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is increasing evidence that people with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are impaired in emotion regulation, but psychophysiological and functional MRI data on emotion processing in adult patients with ADHD are scarce. We investigated the neural correlates of reappraisal as one of the most efficient emotion-regulation strategies. Methods: We included 30 adult patients with ADHD and 35 healthy controls in our study. We applied a well-established reappraisal paradigm in functional MRI and assessed behavioural emotion-regulation strategies with standardized questionnaires. We hypothesized that patients with ADHD would demonstrate impaired reappraisal related to reduced activations in the frontoparietal cognitive control network. Results: Despite our hypothesis, we found no significant activation differences in the neural reappraisal network between patients with ADHD and controls. As well, both groups revealed similar reappraisal success on the immediate behavioural ratings in the scanner. Interestingly, patients with ADHD revealed significantly increased activations in the dorsal and ventral anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) compared to controls when viewing negative > neutral pictures. These ACC activations were significantly correlated with the prevalence of habitual use of reappraisal in patients with ADHD only. Limitations: Patients withdrew medication only 24 hours before the experiment; we investigated negative, but not positive, emotion processing and regulation. Conclusion: Although emotion dysregulation is regarded as a core symptom of ADHD, explicit reappraisal does not seem to be impaired in adult patients. However, increased activation of the ACC implies stronger implicit emotion regulation induced by negative stimuli. This might be explained by emotional hyperresponsivity in patients with ADHD compared with controls.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".