Are Hyperactive Children Deficient in Attentionai
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A dual task was used to study attentional capcity in three groups: in 6- to 12-year-old boys with attention deficit disorder plus hyperactivity (ADDH) or with ADDH and conduct disorder, and in normal children. Subjects performed a primary-choice reaction-time task first without and then with a secondary task that also required a response. Our prediction that the reaction time of ADDH subjects to the secondary task would increase more with increasing temporal overlap of the primary and secondary stimuli, if they were deficient in capacity, was not supported. However, the performance of ADDH subjects on the primary task deteriorated more than that of control subjects with the introduction of the secondary task, indicating a greater concurrence cost or a different allocation policy. Moreover, ADDH subjects had longer reaction times to the secondary task, indicating greater refractory effects or difficulty shifting capacity from primary- to secondarytask processes. Manuscript received in final form April 11, 1990. The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Ontario Mental Health Foundation and the assistance of Diane Chajczyk. This paper was prepared with the assistance of Medical
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".