CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 91Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Methylphenidate effects in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: electrodermal and ERP measures during a continuous performance task

Lawrence, Carlie A., Barry, Robert J., Clarke, Adam R., Johnstone, Stuart J., McCarthy, Rory, Selikowitz, Mark, Broyd, Samantha J.·2005·Psychopharmacology
DOI 10.1007/s00213-005-0144-y
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Rationale Previous research investigating the effects of stimulants, such as methylphenidate (MPH), on children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (AD/HD) has rarely included autonomic measures of arousal.Objective Our aim was to clarify the effects of MPH on central and autonomic measures in AD/HD children during a continuous performance task (CPT) using a naturalistic open-label study.Method Thirty-six boys (18 AD/HD and 18 control) participated in a CPT over two trial periods, allowing a more valid estimate of the effects of medication, rather than assuming that retesting per se has no substantial impact. MPH was administered to the AD/HD group 1 h prior to the second trial. Errors and reaction time (RT) were recorded as measures of performance, electrodermal activity as an autonomic nervous system measure and event-related potentials (ERPs) as an index of central nervous system activity.Results AD/HD children made more errors than controls in the first session, but no group differences were found after medication. No significant differences were observed for RT. Skin conductance level was found to be lower in AD/HD children than controls, but this difference was also ameliorated after medication. Conversely, mean skin conductance response to target stimuli was found not to differ between groups during the initial test phase but became significantly different in phase 2. ERP data showed topographic differences between groups in N1, P2, N2 and P3 at the initial test phase, which were reduced at the second test.Conclusion Stimulant medication ameliorated some of the dysfunctions in AD/HD children, which are reflected in behavioural and ERP measures. These results, in combination with general differences in electrodermal activity, support a hypo-arousal model of AD/HD, which can explain the action of MPH in these children.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00213-005-0144-y

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Lawrence et al. (2005) found reduced mean SCL in children and adolescents with ADHD during an adapted version of the Continuous Performance Task (CPT).

    “Lawrence et al. (2005) found reduced mean SCL in children and adolescents with ADHD during an adapted version of the Continuous Performance Task (CPT), suggesting reduced activation of the ANS, while O'Connell et al. (2004) found atypical phasic modulation of skin conductance in ADHD children and adolescents during a different form of CPT, the Sustained Attention to Response Test (SART).”

    From Is autonomic nervous system function atypical in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)? A systematic review of the evidence (2020) · cites this paper as Lawrence et al., 2005

  • Lawrence et al. (2005) found that children with ADHD, when unmedicated, showed reduced SCL compared to controls during an attentional task, but this difference was not evident when they were medicated.

    “Lawrence et al. (2005) found similar results during an attentional task, so that children with ADHD, when unmedicated, showed reduced SCL compared to controls, but this difference was not evident when they were medicated.”

    From Is autonomic nervous system function atypical in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)? A systematic review of the evidence (2020) · cites this paper as Lawrence et al. (2005)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Lawrence, C. A., Barry, R. J., Clarke, A. R., Johnstone, S. J., McCarthy, R., Selikowitz, M., & Broyd, S. J.
Affiliations
University of Wollongong (AU)
Corresponding author
Barry, Robert J.
ORCID
Venue
Psychopharmacology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2005-09-14
Volume
183
Issue
1
Pages
81-91
ISSN
  • 0033-3158 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-2072
DOI
10.1007/s00213-005-0144-y
OpenAlex
W2061673814
Cited by
91
References
54
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 6
FWCI
2.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
methylphenidate, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, stimulant medication, continuous performance test, electrodermal activity, skin conductance, event-related potentials, autonomic arousal, children, reaction time
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Central Nervous System Stimulants, Arousal, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Evoked Potentials, Female, Galvanic Skin Response, Humans, Male, Methylphenidate, Psychomotor Performance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review