Cited by 42Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

Inhibitory Control and Information Processing in ADHD: Comparing the Dual Task and Performance Adjustment Hypotheses

Open access
Fosco, Whitney D., Kofler, Michael J., Alderson, R. Matt, Tarle, Stephanie J., Raiker, Joseph S., Sarver, Dustin E.·2019·Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology

Abstract

Inhibition is a key neurocognitive domain in ADHD that is commonly assessed with the stop-signal task. The stop-signal involves both "go" and "stop" trials; previous research indicates that response times are reliably slower to "go" trials during tasks with vs. without intermittent "stop" trials. However, it is unclear whether this pattern reflects deliberate slowing to maximize inhibitory success (performance adjustment hypothesis) and/or disrupted bottom-up information processing due to increased cognitive demands (dual-task hypothesis). Given the centrality of "go" responding for estimating children's inhibitory speed, finding that children with ADHD slow differently -or for different reasons- has the potential to inform cognitive and self-regulatory theories of ADHD. The current study used a carefully-controlled experimental design to assess the mechanisms underlying stop signal-related slowing in ADHD. Children ages 8-13 with (n = 81) and without ADHD (n = 63) completed the stop-signal task and a control task that differed only in the presence/absence of "stop" trials. Using drift-diffusion modeling, Bayesian repeated-measures ANOVAs revealed a pattern consistent with the performance adjustment hypothesis, such that children adopted more cautious response strategies (BF 10 = 6221.78; d = 0.38) but did not show changes in processing speed (BF 01 = 3.08; d = 0.12) or encoding/motor speed (BF 01 = 5.73; d = 0.07) when inhibition demands were introduced. Importantly, the ADHD/Non-ADHD groups showed equivalent effects of intermittent "stop" trials (BF 01 = 4.30-5.56). These findings suggest intact self-regulation/performance monitoring in the context of adapting to increased inhibitory demands in ADHD, which has important implications for the continued isolation of potential mechanisms associated with ADHD symptoms and impairment.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10802-018-0504-9

Cites

85 of 85 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Poor performance on inhibitory control tests was attributable in large part to the tests' working memory demands rather than to actual inhibition deficits in children with ADHD.

    “poor performance on inhibitory control tests was attributable, in large part, to the tests’ working memory demands rather reflecting actual inhibition deficits in children with ADHD.31,152,153”

    From Executive function deficits in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder (2024) · cites this paper as [152]

    The Discussion’s Conclusions (page not available) attribute slower responses on the stop-signal task to a deliberate, cautious strategy, not to disrupted cognitive control. The Limitations say the study could not separate the effects of inhibitory, working-memory, and divided-attention demands, so it does not establish working memory as the main cause of poor test performance. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The pattern of results is consistent with recent calls to reconceptualize inhibition as an outcome rather than a process/mechanism that produces outcomes, in which the goal is to inhibit and we rely on other processes including working memory to do so successfully.

    “Finally, this pattern of results is consistent with recent calls to reconceptualize inhibition as an outcome rather than a process/mechanism that produces outcomes (117). In this view, inhibition is not something we use to suppress a response; instead, the goal is to inhibit and we rely on other processes to do so successfully (117), including engaging working memory (this study) to adopt more”

    From Working memory and inhibitory control deficits in children with ADHD: an experimental evaluation of competing model predictions (2024) · cites this paper as [63]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 1 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The three primary executive function components appear to be separable into subprocesses.

    “Similar to how executive function can be fractionated into three primary components, the three primary components seem to be separable into subprocesses.”

    From Executive function deficits in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder (2024) · cites this paper as [152]

    The “Inhibitory Control and Response Speed” section describes inhibitory control as involving action restraint and action cancellation. That supports subprocesses within one executive-function component, but the paper does not establish that all three primary components are separable into subprocesses. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The three executive function components are moderately interrelated, and experimental evidence demonstrates that working memory impacts performance on inhibitory control tests but not vice versa, which could potentially explain why children with ADHD show deficits on inhibition tests.

    “the three executive function components are moderately interrelated, and there is experimental evidence demonstrating that working memory impacts performance on inhibitory control tests (but not vice versa), which could potentially explain why children with ADHD show deficits on inhibition tests.152,157–159”

    From Executive function deficits in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder (2024) · cites this paper as [152]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The pattern of results is consistent with evidence that experimentally increasing inhibition demands does not disrupt computationally modeled cognitive information processing or encoding/motor processes, but rather equivalently causes children with and without ADHD to adopt more cautious response styles.

    “It is consistent also with evidence that experimentally increasing inhibition demands does not disrupt computationally modeled cognitive information processing or encoding/motor processes, but rather equivalently causes children with and without ADHD to adopt more cautious response styles (63).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 86 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Alderson RM, Rapport MD, & Kofler MJ (2007). ADHD and behavioral inhibition: A meta-analytic review of the stop-signal paradigm. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35, 745– 758. 17668315
  2. Conners CK (2008). Conners 3rd edition: Manual. Toronto, Ontario: Multi-Health Systems.
  3. Lijffijt M, Kenemans JL, Verbaten MN, & van Engeland H (2005). A meta-analytic review of stopping performance in ADHD. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 216– 222. 15869352
  4. Nigg JT, Willcutt EG, Doyle AE, & Sonuga-Barke EJ (2005). Causal heterogeneity in ADHD: Do we need neuropsychologically impaired subtypes? Biological psychiatry, 57, 1224– 1230. 15949992
  5. Reynolds CR, & Kamphaus RW (2015). BASC-3: Behavior assessment system for children. 34098808
  6. Schachar RJ, Chen S, Logan GD, Ornstein TJ, Pakulak A (2004). Evidence for an error monitoring deficit in ADHD. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 32, 285– 293. 15228177
  7. Soreni N, Crosbie J, Ickowicz A, & Schachar R (2009). Stop signal and Conners’ CPT: Test-retest reliability of two inhibition measures in ADH. Journal of Attention Disorders, 13, 137– 143. 19429883
  8. Tseng WL, & Gau SS-F (2013). Executive function as a mediator in the link between ADHD and social problems. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54, 996– 1004. 23574361
  9. Willcutt E, Doyle A, Nigg J, Faraone S, & Pennington B (2005). Validity of the executive function theory of ADHD: A meta-analytic review. Biological Psychiatry, 57, 1336– 1346. 15950006

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fosco, W. D., Kofler, M. J., Alderson, R. M., Tarle, S. J., Raiker, J. S., & Sarver, D. E.
Affiliations
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
  • Florida State University (US)
  • Oklahoma State University (US)
  • Florida International University (US)
  • University of Mississippi Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Sarver, Dustin E.
Venue
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology
Published
2018-12-13
Volume
47
Issue
6
Pages
961-974
ISSN
  • 0091-0627 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2835
OpenAlex
W2903746336
Cited by
42
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2
FWCI
2.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Florida International University Digital Commons (Florida International University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R34 MH102499-01)
  • Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and Technology (HR17-051)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
Keywords
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, inhibitory control, stop-signal task, response slowing, drift-diffusion modeling, self-regulation, performance monitoring, processing speed, children
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Female, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Male, Psychomotor Performance, Executive Function

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