Cited by 214Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

Is there evidence for neural compensation in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder? A review of the functional neuroimaging literature

Open access
Fassbender, Catherine, Schweitzer, Julie B.·2006·Clinical Psychology Review

Abstract

This article reviews evidence for the presence of a compensatory, alternative, neural system and its possible link to associated processing strategies in children and adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The article presents findings on a region by region basis that suggests ADHD should be characterized not only by neural hypo-activity, as it is commonly thought but neural hyperactivity as well, in regions of the brain that may relate to compensatory brain and behavioral functioning. In this context studies from the functional neuroimaging literature are reviewed. We hypothesize that impaired prefrontal (PFC) and anterior cingulate (ACC) cortex function in ADHD reduces the ability to optimally recruit subsidiary brain regions and strategies to perform cognitive tasks. The authors conclude that healthy individuals can recruit brain regions using visual, spatial or verbal rehearsal for tasks as needed. In contrast, individuals with ADHD may be less able to engage higher order executive systems to flexibly recruit brain regions to match given task demands. This may result in greater reliance on neuroanatomy that is associated with visual, spatial, and motoric processing rather than verbal strategies. The authors speculate that this impaired flexibility in recruiting brain regions and associated strategies limits adaptation to new cognitive demands as they present and may require more effortful processing.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2006.01.003

Cites

174 of 174 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 178 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fassbender, C., & Schweitzer, J. B.
Affiliations
University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
Corresponding author
Schweitzer, Julie B.
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-08
Volume
26
Issue
4
Pages
445-465
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2137654107
Cited by
214
References
178
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 13
FWCI
6.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Brandeis University
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH066310, MH066310)
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, neural compensation, neural hyperactivity, prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, executive function, cognitive flexibility, processing strategies, functional neuroimaging
MeSH terms
Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Brain, Child, Cognition Disorders, Humans, Impulsive Behavior, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Nerve Net

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