Hemodynamic response to familiar faces in children with ADHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: School-age children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have difficulties in interpersonal relationships, in addition to impaired facial expression perception and recognition. For successful social interactions, the ability to discriminate between familiar and unfamiliar faces is critical. However, there are no published reports on the recognition of familiar and unfamiliar faces by children with ADHD. METHODS: We evaluated the neural correlates of familiar and unfamiliar facial recognition in children with ADHD compared to typically developing (TD) children. We used functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) to measure hemodynamic responses on the bilateral temporal regions while participants looked at photographs of familiar and unfamiliar faces. Nine boys with ADHD and 14 age-matched TD boys participated in the study. fNIRS data were Z-scored prior to analysis. RESULTS: During familiar face processing, TD children only showed significant activity in the late phase, while ADHD children showed significant activity in both the early and late phases. Additionally, the boys with ADHD did not show right hemispheric lateralization to familiar faces. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to assess brain activity during familiar face processing in boys with ADHD using fNIRS. These findings of atypical patterns of brain activity in boys with ADHD may be related to social cognitive impairments from ADHD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".