Differential neural processing of value during decision-making in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and healthy controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Risk-taking behaviours are observed among adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We sought to evaluate altered neural processing of stimuli values associated with risk-taking decision behaviour, distinct from learning requirements, among adults with ADHD. METHODS: Overall, 32 adults with ADHD and 32 healthy controls without ADHD underwent a lottery choice task in a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) experiment. Participants accepted or rejected stakes with explicit information about variable probabilities of winning or losing points at different magnitudes. Outcomes were independent across trials, circumventing reward learning. Data analysis explored group differences in neurobehavioural responses to stimuli values during choice decision-making processing and outcome feedback. RESULTS: Compared with healthy controls, adults with ADHD had slower response times and tended to accept more stakes with a middle-to-low probability of winning. Adults with ADHD had evidence of lower dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) activity and reduced sensitivity in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) region of interest in response to linear changes in probability, compared with healthy controls. Lower DLPFC responses were associated with lower VMPFC probability sensitivity and greater risk-taking among healthy controls but not adults with ADHD. Compared with health controls, adults with ADHD showed higher responses to loss outcomes in the putamen and hippocampus. LIMITATIONS: Assessments of real-life decision behaviours are required to further validate the experimental findings. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings explore tonic and phasic neural processing of value-related information that modulates risk-taking behaviours among adults with ADHD. Dysregulated neural computation of the values of behavioural actions and outcomes in the frontostriatal circuits may underlie decision processing distinct from reward learning differences among adults with ADHD. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02642068.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".