Cited by 71Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

Electrophysiological indices of error monitoring in juvenile and adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)—A meta-analytic appraisal

Geburek, A.J., Rist, F., Gediga, G., Stroux, D., Pedersen, A.·2013·International Journal of Psychophysiology

Abstract

Attempts to identify the central disturbed processes explaining the overt symptoms of juvenile and adult ADHD rely heavily on the concept of deficient error monitoring processes. A number of studies have investigated event-related potentials (ERPs) and behavioral performance in tasks traditionally used to probe the interference control and inhibition of motor responses. The inspection of the error negativity (Ne/ERN) and error positivity (Pe) components evoked in these tasks has produced conflicting results with respect to the nature and extent of an error monitoring deficit in ADHD. A meta-analytic aggregation of these single studies should help develop a reliable appraisal of the evidence for the compromised performance monitoring processes in ADHD. Our meta-analysis was confined to studies of adult and juvenile ADHD participants examined in GoNogo and Flanker task studies that also reported the Ne/ERN and Pe ERP components. Only seven studies were suited for the meta-analysis, but their aggregation nevertheless led to clear results: Ne was attenuated in adult and adolescent ADHD participants for both tasks, and Pe was attenuated only in the GoNogo tasks. The ADHD participants made more errors than the controls in both tasks but responded slower only in the Flanker task. To our knowledge, this meta-analysis is the first to compare electrophysiological and behavioral indices of error monitoring in adult and juvenile ADHD patients and healthy controls. Admittedly, the data av…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2012.08.006

Cites

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?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 87 · Cited by 71

Authors
Geburek, A. J., Rist, F., Gediga, G., Stroux, D., & Pedersen, A.
Affiliations
University of Münster (DE)
Corresponding author
Geburek, A.J.
Venue
International Journal of Psychophysiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-03
Volume
87
Issue
3
Pages
349-362
ISSN
0167-8760 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1986361448
Cited by
71
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5
FWCI
2.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Psychophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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, error monitoring, error-related negativity, error positivity, event-related potentials, go/no-go task, flanker task, interference control, performance monitoring, adult ADHD
MeSH terms
Aging, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Female, Humans, Male, Monitoring, Physiologic, Neuropsychological Tests

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