Differential reward processing in subtypes of adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
Abstract
Objectives Abnormalities in reward processing have been found in adolescents and adults with ADHD using the 'Monetary Incentive Delay' (MID) task. However, ADHD groups in previous studies were heterogeneous regarding ADHD subtype, gender and, in part, drug treatment status. This study sought to compare neural activations in the ventral striatum (VS) and prefrontal regions during reward processing in homogenous ADHD subtype groups and healthy adults, using the MID task. Methods In total, 24 drug-naïve, right-handed male adults with ADHD (12 subjects with combined type (ADHD-ct) and 12 subjects with predominantly inattentive (ADHD-it) type ADHD), and twelve healthy right-handed male control subjects were included. Results Compared to ADHD-ct and healthy subjects, ADHD-it subjects showed a bilateral ventral striatal deficit during reward anticipation. In contrast, ADHD-ct subjects showed orbitofrontal hyporesponsiveness to reward feedback when compared with ADHD-it and healthy subjects. Conclusions This is the first fMRI study that delineates dysfunctional and subtype-divergent neural and behavioural reward processing in adults with ADHD.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Initial studies suggest that hypoactivation of ventral striatum observed in reward anticipation is more expressed in inattentive ADHD compared to combined type ADHD in adults.
“Initial studies suggest that the hypoactivation of ventral striatum observed in reward anticipation is more expressed in inattentive ADHD compared to combined type ADHD in adults (Edel et al., 2013) suggesting that sub-categorization of ADHD may be important in understanding how future rewards are processed.”
From Top-Down Dysregulation—From ADHD to Emotional Instability (2016) · cites this paper as Edel et al., 2013
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 35 · Cited by 42
- Authors
- Edel, M.-A., Enzi, B., Witthaus, H., Tegenthoff, M., Peters, S., Juckel, G., & Lissek, S.
- Affiliations
- LWL-Universitätsklinikum Bochum (DE)
- BG University Hospital Bergmannsheil Bochum (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Enzi, Björn
- Venue
- Journal of Psychiatric Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-03
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 350-356
- ISSN
- 0022-3956 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2082896877
- Cited by
- 42
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 3.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Psychiatric Research (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
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
- Keywords
- adult ADHD, ADHD subtypes, reward processing, ventral striatum, orbitofrontal cortex, monetary incentive delay task, reward anticipation, reward feedback, combined type ADHD
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Analysis of Variance, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Brain, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Functional Laterality, Learning Disabilities, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Neuropsychological Tests, Oxygen, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Reward, 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.
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
