Electrophysiological correlates of spontaneous mind wandering in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We recently hypothesised that increased spontaneous mind wandering (MW-S) reflects a core process underlying attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Previous studies show that individuals with ADHD and neurotypical individuals with increased MW-S display similar cognitive-performance and electrophysiological (EEG) impairments in attentional processes. However, the cognitive-EEG markers associated with increased MW-S in ADHD remain poorly understood. We therefore investigated such markers in a sample of 69 sex- and age-matched adults with ADHD and 29 controls during the Sustained Attention to Response Task. We compared task performance and EEG measures (P3, time-frequency brain-oscillations) of attentional processes between groups, and examined their association with a validated self-report questionnaire of MW-S. Finally, we tested the hypothesis that MW-S and ADHD diagnosis relate to the same cognitive-EEG impairments using a hierarchical regression model. Compared to controls, adults with ADHD showed attenuations in P3, event-related alpha and beta suppression during response inhibition (No-Go trials), and theta power activations during response execution (Go trials), as well as increased reaction time variability and more commission/omission errors. MW-S was also continuously associated with most cognitive-EEG measures related to ADHD. The hierarchical regressions on measures associated with both ADHD diagnosis and MW-S showed that MW-S did not explain additional variance in the cognitive-EEG markers (except for beta suppression) beyond ADHD diagnosis, and vice versa. These findings are consistent with our hypothesis that ADHD diagnosis and MW-S share common neural deficits, and that MW-S may reflect a core symptom of the disorder.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".