Cited by 147Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 57 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Attentional Control Activation Relates to Working Memory in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

Open access

Abstract

Background Attentional control difficulties in individuals with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) might reflect poor working memory (WM) ability, especially because WM ability and attentional control rely on similar brain regions. The current study examined whether WM ability might explain group differences in brain activation between adults with ADHD and normal control subjects during attentional demand.Methods Participants were 20 adults with ADHD combined subtype with no comorbid psychiatric or learning disorders and 23 control subjects similar in age, IQ, and gender. The WM measures were obtained from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III and Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised. Brain activation was assessed with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) while performing a Color-Word Stroop task.Results Group differences in WM ability explained a portion of the activation in left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), which has been related to the creation and maintenance of an attentional set for task-relevant information. In addition, greater WM ability predicted increased activation of brain regions related to stimulus-driven attention and response selection processes in the ADHD group but not in the control group.Conclusions The inability to maintain an appropriate task set in young adults with combined type ADHD, associated with decreased activity in left DLPFC, might in part be due to poor WM ability. Furthermore, in individuals with ADHD, higher WM ability might relate to increased recruitment of stimulus-driven attention and response selection processes, perhaps as a compensatory strategy.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.10.036

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

11 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Verification

Claims the paper makes

29 Own result · 28 Not checked yet · 17 Own interpretation · 6 Own method · 2 No basis given · 1 Supported · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured

Verify all 55 references — free account

Show all 54 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 14
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 17
30 of 30
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No prior studies have directly examined how the neural substrates supporting both working memory and attentional control, namely DLPFC, might be altered in young adults with ADHD.

    “Despite these similarities, no studies have investigated directly how the neural substrates that support both WM ability and attentional control, namely DLPFC, might be altered in young adults with ADHD.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Working memory networks maintain representations of task sets, producing a relationship between working memory ability and task-set maintenance.

    “We propose that WM networks may maintain representations of task sets, resulting in a relationship between WM ability and task-set maintenance.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The Stroop task contains at least three levels of attentional demand: task-set selection and maintenance, task-relevant stimulus-dimension selection, and response selection.

    “The Stroop task contains at least three levels of attentional demand: selection and maintenance of a task set for task-relevant information (i.e., attend to chromatic color), selection of the task-relevant stimulus dimension (i.e. the chromatic color blue, not the semantic meaning “RED”), and response selection (the response associated with blue versus with red).”
3 of 3

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?

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

2 of 2

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upr(20) = 0.468reported p = .038 · recomputed p = .028

    “r(20)=.468, p = .038”

  • Doesn’t add upr(23) = 0.111reported p > .6 · recomputed p = .597

    “r(23)=.111, p > .60”

  • Consistentt(41) = -3.26reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002

    “t(41) = -3.260, p = .002”

  • Consistentt(41) = -2.131reported p = .039 · recomputed p = .039

    “t(41) = -2.131, p = .039”

  • Consistentt(41) = -3.313reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002

    “t(41) = -3.313, p = .002”

  • Consistentt(41) = -1.922reported p = .062 · recomputed p = .062

    “t(41) = -1.922, p = .062”

  • Consistentt(41) = -3.804reported p = .0005 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(41) = -3.804, p = .0005”

  • Consistentt(41) = 2.385reported p = .022 · recomputed p = .022

    “t(41)=2.385, p = .022”

  • Consistentt(40) = 2.51reported p = .016 · recomputed p = .016

    “t(40)=2.510, p = .016”

  • Consistentt(41) = -2.329reported p = .025 · recomputed p = .025

    “t(41)=-2.329, p = .025”

  • Consistentt(40) = -2.356reported p = .023 · recomputed p = .023

    “t(40)=-2.356, p = .023”

11 of 11

Self-check

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

Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.

Citations

Cites

Show all 44 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–146 of 146

Metadata

Authors
Burgess, G. C., Depue, B. E., Ruzic, L., Willcutt, E. G., Du, Y. P., & Banich, M. T.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • University of Colorado Denver (US)
Corresponding author
Burgess, Gregory C.
Venue
Biological Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-04
Volume
67
Issue
7
Pages
632-640
ISSN
0006-3223 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2089842948
Cited by
147
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 7
FWCI
8.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biological Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01 MH70037, P50 MH079485)
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, working memory, attentional control, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, Stroop task, task set maintenance, bottom-up attention, response selection, adult ADHD
MeSH terms
Attention, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Reaction Time, Wechsler Scales, Young Adult

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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