Sensorimotor integration and motor learning during a novel force-matching task in young adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder that exhibits unique neurological and behavioral characteristics. Those with ADHD often have noted impairments in motor performance and coordination, including during tasks that require force modulation. The present study provides insight into the role of altered neural processing and SMI in response to a motor learning paradigm requiring force modulation and proprioception, that previous literature has suggested to be altered in those with ADHD, which can also inform our understanding of the neurophysiology underlying sensorimotor integration (SMI) in the general population. Methods: = 15) performed a novel force-matching task, where participants used their right-thumb to match a trace template that varied from 2-12% of their Abductor Pollicis Brevis maximum voluntary contraction. This motor task was completed in pre, acquisition, and post blocks. Participants also completed a retention test 24 h later. Median nerve somatosensory-evoked potentials (SEPs) were collected pre and post motor acquisition. SEPs were stimulated at two frequencies, 2.47 Hz and 4.98 Hz, and 1,000 sweeps were recorded using 64-electrode electroencephalography (EEG) at 2,048 Hz. SEP amplitude changes were normalized to each participant's baseline values for that peak. Results: Both groups improved at post measures (ADHD: 0.85 ± 0.09; Controls: 0.85 ± 0.10), with improvements maintained at retention (ADHD: 0.82 ± 0.11; Controls: 0.82 ± 0.11). The ADHD group had a decreased N18 post-acquisition (0.87 ± 0.48), while the control N18 increased (1.91 ± 1.43). The N30 increased in both groups, with a small increase in the ADHD group (1.03 ± 0.21) and a more pronounced increase in controls (1.15 ± 0.27). Discussion: Unique neural differences between groups were found after the acquisition of a novel force-matching motor paradigm, particularly relating to the N18 peak. The N18 differences suggest that those with ADHD have reduced olivary-cerebellar-M1 inhibition when learning a novel motor task dependent on force-modulation, potentially due to difficulties integrating the afferent feedback necessary to perform the task. The results of this work provide evidence that young adults with ADHD have altered proprioceptive processing when learning a novel motor task when compared to neurotypical 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 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 | 0.001 | 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".