scholarly journals Modality differences in ERP components between somatosensory and auditory Go/No-go paradigms in prepubescent children

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. e0259653
Author(s):  
Hiroki Nakata ◽  
Miho Takezawa ◽  
Keita Kamijo ◽  
Manabu Shibasaki
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Behavioral Responses ◽  
Event Related Potentials ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Peak Latency ◽  
Peak Amplitude ◽  
Time Variability ◽  
Commission Error ◽  
Reaction Time Variability ◽  
Related Potentials

We investigated modality differences in the N2 and P3 components of event-related potentials (ERPs) between somatosensory and auditory Go/No-go paradigms in eighteen healthy prepubescent children (mean age: 125.9±4.2 months). We also evaluated the relationship between behavioral responses (reaction time, reaction time variability, and omission and commission error rates) and amplitudes and latencies of N2 and P3 during somatosensory and auditory Go/No-go paradigms. The peak latency of No-go-N2 was significantly shorter than that of Go-N2 during somatosensory paradigms, but not during auditory paradigms. The peak amplitude of P3 was significantly larger during somatosensory than auditory paradigms, and the peak latency of P3 was significantly shorter during somatosensory than auditory paradigms. Correlations between behavioral responses and the P3 component were not found during somatosensory paradigms. On the other hand, in auditory paradigms, correlations were detected between the reaction time and peak amplitude of No-go-P3, and between the reaction time variability and peak latency of No-go-P3. A correlation was noted between commission error and the peak latency of No-go-N2 during somatosensory paradigms. Compared with previous adult studies using both somatosensory and auditory Go/No-go paradigms, the relationships between behavioral responses and ERP components would be weak in prepubescent children. Our data provide findings to advance understanding of the neural development of motor execution and inhibition processing, that is dependent on or independent of the stimulus modality.

scholarly journals Instructions Affect Reaction Time Variability: Evaluation by Event-Related Potentials

2017 ◽  
Vol 07 (03) ◽  
pp. 95-110
Author(s):  
Tomofumi Fukuda ◽  
Masayuki Shimono ◽  
Ayako Senju ◽  
Masahiro Ishii ◽  
Ryouta Igarashi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Event Related Potentials ◽  
Time Variability ◽  
Reaction Time Variability ◽  
Related Potentials

scholarly journals Behavioral and Neurophysiological Markers of ADHD in Children, Adolescents, and Adults: A Large-Scale Clinical Study

2021 ◽  
pp. 155005942199334
Author(s):  
Marionna Münger ◽  
Gian Candrian ◽  
Johannes Kasper ◽  
Hossam Abdel-Rehim ◽  
Dominique Eich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Clinical Diagnosis ◽  
Performance Test ◽  
Event Related Potentials ◽  
Time Variability ◽  
Daily Routine ◽  
Healthy Controls ◽  
Reaction Time Variability ◽  
Adolescents And Adults ◽  
Related Potentials

This study aimed to re-evaluate the possible differences between attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) subjects and healthy controls in the context of a standard Go/NoGo task (visual continuous performance test [VCPT]), frequently used to measure executive functions. In contrast to many previous studies, our sample comprises children, adolescents, and adults. We analyzed data from 447 ADHD patients and 227 healthy controls. By applying multivariate linear regression analyses, we controlled the group differences between ADHD patients and controls for age and sex. As dependent variables we used behavioral (number of omission and commission errors, reaction time, and reaction time variability) and neurophysiological measures (event-related potentials [ERPs]). In summary, we successfully replicated the deviations of ADHD subjects from healthy controls. The differences are small to moderate when expressed as effect size measures (number of omission errors: d = 0.60, reaction time variability: d = 0.56, contingent negative variation (CNV) and P3 amplitudes: −0.35 <  d < −0.47, ERP latencies: 0.21 <  d < 0.29). Further analyses revealed no substantial differences between ADHD subtypes (combined, inattentive, and hyperactive/impulsive presentation), subgroups according to high- and low-symptomatic burden or methylphenidate intake for their daily routine. We successfully replicated known differences between ADHD subjects and controls for the behavioral and neurophysiological variables. However, the small-to-moderate effect sizes limit their utility as biomarkers in the diagnostic procedure. The incongruence of self-reported symptomatic burden and clinical diagnosis emphasizes the challenges of the present clinical diagnosis with low reliability, which partially accounts for the low degree of discrimination between ADHD subjects and controls.

scholarly journals Event-related brain-oscillatory and ex-Gaussian markers of remission and persistence of ADHD

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Isabella Vainieri ◽  
Giorgia Michelini ◽  
Nicoletta Adamo ◽  
Celeste H. M. Cheung ◽  
Philip Asherson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Time Distribution ◽  
Event Related Potentials ◽  
Reaction Time Distribution ◽  
Time Variability ◽  
Compensatory Mechanisms ◽  
Incentive Condition ◽  
Time Frequency ◽  
Theta Power ◽  
Related Potentials

Abstract Background Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often persists into adolescence and adulthood, but the processes underlying persistence and remission remain poorly understood. We previously found that reaction time variability and event-related potentials of preparation-vigilance processes were impaired in ADHD persisters and represented markers of remission, as ADHD remitters were indistinguishable from controls but differed from persisters. Here, we aimed to further clarify the nature of the cognitive-neurophysiological impairments in ADHD and of markers of remission by examining the finer-grained ex-Gaussian reaction-time distribution and electroencephalographic (EEG) brain-oscillatory measures in ADHD persisters, remitters and controls. Methods A total of 110 adolescents and young adults with childhood ADHD (87 persisters, 23 remitters) and 169 age-matched controls were compared on ex-Gaussian (mu, sigma, tau) indices and time-frequency EEG measures of power and phase consistency from a reaction-time task with slow-unrewarded baseline and fast-incentive conditions (‘Fast task’). Results Compared to controls, ADHD persisters showed significantly greater mu, sigma, tau, and lower theta power and phase consistency across conditions. Relative to ADHD persisters, remitters showed significantly lower tau and theta power and phase consistency across conditions, as well as lower mu in the fast-incentive condition, with no difference in the baseline condition. Remitters did not significantly differ from controls on any measure. Conclusions We found widespread impairments in ADHD persisters in reaction-time distribution and brain-oscillatory measures. Event-related theta power, theta phase consistency and tau across conditions, as well as mu in the more engaging fast-incentive condition, emerged as novel markers of ADHD remission, potentially representing compensatory mechanisms in individuals with remitted ADHD.

Neuroticism and Speed-Accuracy Tradeoff in Self-Paced Speeded Mental Addition and Comparison

2010 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 130-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hagen C. Flehmig ◽  
Michael B. Steinborn ◽  
Karl Westhoff ◽  
Robert Langner
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Response Speed ◽  
Time Variability ◽  
Reaction Time Variability ◽  
Comparison Task ◽  
Processing Efficiency ◽  
Mental Addition ◽  
Speed Accuracy ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Accuracy Tradeoff

Previous research suggests a relationship between neuroticism (N) and the speed-accuracy tradeoff in speeded performance: High-N individuals were observed performing less efficiently than low-N individuals and compensatorily overemphasizing response speed at the expense of accuracy. This study examined N-related performance differences in the serial mental addition and comparison task (SMACT) in 99 individuals, comparing several performance measures (i.e., response speed, accuracy, and variability), retest reliability, and practice effects. N was negatively correlated with mean reaction time but positively correlated with error percentage, indicating that high-N individuals tended to be faster but less accurate in their performance than low-N individuals. The strengthening of the relationship after practice demonstrated the reliability of the findings. There was, however, no relationship between N and distractibility (assessed via measures of reaction time variability). Our main findings are in line with the processing efficiency theory, extending the relationship between N and working style to sustained self-paced speeded mental addition.

scholarly journals Lateralization of attention in adults with ADHD: Evidence of pseudoneglect

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bartosz Helfer ◽  
Stefanos Maltezos ◽  
Elizabeth Liddle ◽  
Jonna Kuntsi ◽  
Philip Asherson
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Visual Field ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Study Participant ◽  
Reaction Time Task ◽  
Right Visual Field ◽  
Time Variability ◽  
Incentive Condition ◽  
Reaction Time Variability ◽  
The Right

Abstract Background. We investigated whether adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) show pseudoneglect—preferential allocation of attention to the left visual field (LVF) and a resulting slowing of mean reaction times (MRTs) in the right visual field (RVF), characteristic of neurotypical (NT) individuals —and whether lateralization of attention is modulated by presentation speed and incentives. Method. Fast Task, a four-choice reaction-time task where stimuli were presented in LVF or RVF, was used to investigate differences in MRT and reaction time variability (RTV) in adults with ADHD (n = 43) and NT adults (n = 46) between a slow/no-incentive and fast/incentive condition. In the lateralization analyses, pseudoneglect was assessed based on MRT, which was calculated separately for the LVF and RVF for each condition and each study participant. Results. Adults with ADHD had overall slower MRT and increased RTV relative to NT. MRT and RTV improved under the fast/incentive condition. Both groups showed RVF-slowing with no between-group or between-conditions differences in RVF-slowing. Conclusion. Adults with ADHD exhibited pseudoneglect, a NT pattern of lateralization of attention, which was not attenuated by presentation speed and incentives.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document