The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet; 1 of the 53 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands
Open accessAbstract
One of the most consistent findings in children with ADHD is increased moment-to-moment variability in reaction time (RT). The source of increased RT variability can be examined using ex-Gaussian analyses that divide variability into normal and exponential components and Fast Fourier transform (FFT) that allow for detailed examination of the frequency of responses in the exponential distribution. Prior studies of ADHD using these methods have produced variable results, potentially related to differences in task demand. The present study sought to examine the profile of RT variability in ADHD using two Go/No-go tasks with differing levels of cognitive demand. A total of 140 children (57 with ADHD and 83 typically developing controls), ages 8–13 years, completed both a “simple” Go/No-go task and a more “complex” Go/No-go task with increased working memory load. Repeated measures ANOVA of ex-Gaussian functions revealed for both tasks children with ADHD demonstrated increased variability in both the normal/Gaussian (significantly elevated sigma) and the exponential (significantly elevated tau) components. In contrast, FFT analysis of the exponential component revealed a significant task × diagnosis interaction, such that infrequent slow responses in ADHD differed depending on task demand (i.e., for the simple task, increased power in the 0.027–0.074 Hz frequency band; for the complex task, decreased power in the 0.074–0.202 Hz band). The ex-Gaussian findings revealing increased variability in both the normal (sigma) and exponential (tau) components for the ADHD group, suggest that both impaired response preparation and infrequent “lapses in attention” contribute to increased variability in ADHD. FFT analyses reveal that the periodicity of intermittent lapses of attention in ADHD varies with task demand. The findings provide further support for intra-individual variability as a candidate intermediate endophenotype of ADHD.
Verified 2026-10-06 · 1 reference not checked yet
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
36 Own result · 30 Not checked yet · 18 Own interpretation · 5 Own method · 1 Supported so far · 1 No basis given
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Further, several studies have demonstrated that close family members of individuals with ADHD demonstrate increased variability in responding, including, siblings sharing an ADHD diagnosis, discordant dizygotic twins, and siblings who do not meet criteria for diagnosis of ADHD (Bidwell, Willcutt, DeFries, & Pennington, 2007; Rommelse et al., 2007).”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Bidwell, Willcutt, DeFries, & Pennington, 2007 source
The Results report significantly poorer performance on response-variability measures in both ADHD probands and their unaffected cotwins than in controls. This supports the claim that siblings who do not meet ADHD diagnostic criteria show greater response variability. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Not checked yetcites Rommelse et al., 2007
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results indicate that under conditions requiring at least moderate degrees of response control, children with ADHD show increased variability in both the normal Gaussian (fast”) and exponential (“slow”) components of the reaction time distribution.”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 5. Discussion
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was also a significant main effect for diagnosis (F[1,138] = 6.98, p = 0.009) with children in the ADHD group demonstrating significantly increased variability in the exponential component (M= 125.18, SD= 50.35) compared to children in the control group (M= 102.29, SD = 50.35).”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 4. Gaussian and ex-Gaussian distribution of RT
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was no significant task × diagnosis interaction (F[1,138] = 0.93, p = 0.34) (Table 2).”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 3. Results > 3.2. Comparison of speed and accuracy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results of this analysis indicated that children with ADHD demonstrate greater spectra in the 0.027–0.074 frequency band on the simple Go/No-go task.”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 5. Discussion
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interaction between diagnostic status and task was not significant (F[1,138] = 0.18, p = 0.68).”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 3. Results > 3.3. Variability
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Analysis of percent commission errors, indicated a significant main effect for task (F[1,138] = 22.13, p < 0.001) with children across both groups showing more commission errors on the complex task than on the simple task (simple M percentage = 0.33, SD = 0.20; complex M = 0.41, SD = 0.19).”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 3. Results > 3.2. Comparison of speed and accuracy
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, follow-up analyses failed to reveal a difference RT to odd green and even green stimuli, so that we were unable to directly demonstrate that the pattern of responding in the TD group was directly related to increasing efficiency in responding.”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 5. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore the TD group demonstrated increased power in the 0.074–0.202 Hz band when completing the complex Go/No-go task, corresponding to increases in variability in the 5–15 s (2–5 trials) range.”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 5. Discussion
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Analysis of CV indicated a significant main effect for diagnostic status (F[1,138] = 9.92, p = 0.002) with children in the ADHD group demonstrating higher CV (M = 0.37, SD = 0.11) compared to the control group (M = 0.31, SD = 0.11) across both tasks.”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 3. Results > 3.3. Variability
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 32
- Probably not a substantial claim. 9
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Repeated measures ANOVA of ex-Gaussian functions revealed for both tasks children with ADHD demonstrated increased variability in both the normal/Gaussian (significantly elevated sigma) and the exponential (significantly elevated tau) components.”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > Abstract
boostedcorrelationaln = 140- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Reaction time distributions can be modeled as the sum of a normal component and an independent exponential component.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, FFT analysis of the exponential component revealed a significant task × diagnosis interaction, such that infrequent slow responses in ADHD differed depending on task demand (i.e., for the simple task, increased power in the 0.027–0.074 Hz frequency band; for the complex task, decreased power in the 0.074–0.202 Hz band).”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > Abstract
plaincorrelationaln = 140- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Task×diagnosis interaction was not significant (F[1,138] = 0.03, p = 0.855). There were no significant effect of ADHD subtype for tau on either the simple (t[1,55] =−0.35, p = 0.73) or complex task (t[1,55] = 0.63, p = 0.53) Fig. 1.”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 4. Gaussian and ex-Gaussian distribution of RT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results indicated significant main effects for band (F[1,138] = 1890.24, p < 0.001). Children in both groups demonstrated increased power in the shortest wavelength bands, and reduced power across longer wavelength bands.”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 4. Gaussian and ex-Gaussian distribution of RT > 4.1. Fast frequency spectral analysis
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while the children in the control group were slightly, but not significantly, faster on the complex task (M = 390.50, SD = 106.68) compared to the simple task (M = 395.62, SD = 109.47) (t = 0.594).”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 3. Results > 3.2. Comparison of speed and accuracy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“WISC-IV VCI and PRI scores were therefore examined as more valid measures of intellectual reasoning in children with ADHD with findings revealing no statistically significant differences between groups for either PRI or VCI score (PRI: F = 3.33, p = 0.07; VCI: F = 2.55, p = 0.11).”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 3. Results > 3.1. Demographic information
plainn = 125- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were no main effects for reaction time (i.e., mean reaction time) for either diagnostic category or task (F[1,138] = 1.30, p = 0.26 and F[1,138] = 1.44, p = 0.23, respectively).”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 3. Results > 3.2. Comparison of speed and accuracy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Task×diagnosis interaction was not significant (F[1,138] = 0.32, p = 0.57) and there were no significant effect of ADHD subtype on either the simple (t[1,55] = 0.49, p = 0.62) or the complex (t[1,55] = 1.19, p = 0.24).”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 4. Gaussian and ex-Gaussian distribution of RT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Analysis of mu, a measure of the mean of the normal component of the normal portion of the distribution, yielded no significant main effect for diagnosis (F[1,138] = 0.07, p = 0.80) or task (F[1,138] = 1.65, p = 0.20).”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 4. Gaussian and ex-Gaussian distribution of RT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was a nearly significant interaction between diagnosis and task (F[1,138] = 3.71, p = 0.056), with controls demonstrating decreased values for mu for the complex task, and increased values for mu for the simple task, while children in the ADHD showed slightly increased mu for the complex task compared to the simple task.”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 4. Gaussian and ex-Gaussian distribution of RT
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Specifically, there was no between-group difference in RT on the simple Go/No-go task; however, children with ADHD showed significantly increased RT on the complex Go/No-go task.”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 5. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, evaluation of the ex-Gaussian distribution revealed that for both tasks, children with ADHD demonstrated a pattern of increased variability in both the fast (i.e., sigma) and slow (i.e., tau) portions of the distribution, despite changing working memory demands.”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 5. Discussion
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although the etiology of ADHD is not known, recent research clearly identifies ADHD as a neurobiological disorder (Buitelaar, Montgomery, & van Zwieten-Boot, 2003; Denckla, 2003; Durston, 2003; Tannock, 1998).”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Buitelaar, Montgomery, & van Zwieten-Boot, 2003
- Not checked yetcites Denckla, 2003
- Not checked yetcites Durston, 2003 source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was a statistically significant group difference in FSIQ, with ADHD children having lower FSIQ (M = 111.3, SD = 11.92) than children in the control group (M = 116.2, SD = 11.8) (F[1,138] = 5.65, p = 0.02).”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 3. Results > 3.1. Demographic information
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“First, increased variability in responding has been demonstrated to correlate with impulsive responding and self-report of inattention to tasks (Rommelse et al., 2007; Simmonds et al., 2007; Strandburg et al., 1996), suggesting that variability in responding is a contributing factor to expression of diagnostic characteristics of ADHD.”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rommelse et al., 2007
- Not checked yetcites Simmonds et al., 2007 source
- Not checked yetcites Strandburg et al., 1996
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Consistent with this, fMRI analysis using the simple GNG task reveals that, compared to TD children, children with ADHD show decreased pre-SMA activation (Suskauer, Simmonds, Fotedar et al., 2008) as well as anomalous association between pre-SMA activation and ISV (Suskauer, Simmonds, Caffo et al., 2008).”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Suskauer, Simmonds, Fotedar et al., 2008 source
- Not checked yetcites Suskauer, Simmonds, Caffo et al., 2008
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In addition, children with other developmental disabilities have been shown to demonstrate deficits in response inhibition on some tasks, indicating that this may not be a characteristic specific to children with ADHD (e.g., Johnson et al., 2007a).”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Johnson et al., 2007a
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Functional imaging findings using these two tasks indicate that the neural substrates of response control are, in some respects, dependent on task demand (Mostofsky et al., 2003).”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mostofsky et al., 2003 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“For both the simple and the complex Go/No-go tasks, no-go-associated activation was observed in the rostral supplementary motor area (“pre-SMA”), a region important for response selection and control (Isoda & Hikosaka, 2007).”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Isoda & Hikosaka, 2007
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Prior studies of ADHD using these methods have produced variable results, potentially related to differences in task demand.”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In practice, however, the evidence supporting deficits in inhibitory control as an endophenotype of ADHD have been mixed; some studies find that children with ADHD show high rates of inhibitory failures (commission errors) compared to typically developing (TD) children (e.g., Johnson et al., 2007b; Wodka et al., 2007) while others find no differences in errors between groups (Schulz et al., 2004).”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the first, subjects performed a simple choice response task with minimal demands on response control; children with ADHD showed increased variability in the exponential component (increased tau), but not the normal portion of the distribution.”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Leth-Steensen et al., 2000
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Reaction time distributions can be modeled as the sum of a normal component and an independent exponential component.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Analyses characterizing ISV in ADHD has revealed a pattern of occasional responses with unusually long reaction time, with the majority of responses being comparable to comparison groups (Castellanos et al., 2005; Hervey et al., 2006; Leth-Steensen, King Elbaz, & Douglas, 2000).”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ex-Gaussian findings revealing increased variability in both the normal (sigma) and exponential (tau) components for the ADHD group, suggest that both impaired response preparation and infrequent “lapses in attention” contribute to increased variability in ADHD.”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > Abstract
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Reaction time distributions can be modeled as the sum of a normal component and an independent exponential component.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Groups did not differ significantly in gender distribution (χ2 = 1.78, p = 0.18), handedness (χ2 = 0.178, p = 0.67), racial distribution (χ2 = 2.54, p = 0.47) or age (F = 0.01, p = 0.91).”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 3. Results > 3.1. Demographic information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“FSIQ scores include measures of working memory and processing speed. These domains are typically impaired in individuals with ADHD and it is believed that this selectively lowers FSIQ scores in children with ADHD (Mayes & Calhoun, 2006; Wilcutt, Doyle, Nigg, Faraone, & Pennington, 2005).”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 3. Results > 3.1. Demographic information
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A strength of the present study was the use of two methods, ex-Gaussian and FFT analysis, to evaluate intra-individual variability in children with ADHD compared with TD controls during two separate tasks that required controlled responding.”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 5. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other words, it appeared that the TD children were speeding or slowing their responding more frequently in order to maximize their efficiency and accuracy in the task.”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 5. Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Examination of mean RT in ADHD have demonstrated mixed results, with some showing children with ADHD have significantly slower RT (e.g., Tamm, Menon, Ringel, & Reiss, 2004) while others show no differences depending on ADHD diagnostic subtype (e.g., Derefinko et al., 2008).”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 5. Discussion
What the sources say
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This pattern was observed regardless of working memory demand, suggesting that abnormalities in systems critical engaging a state of preparedness to respond may be central to the neural basis of ADHD.”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 5. Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some task-specific changes in variability in the slow portion of the distribution for children with ADHD were revealed using finer grained FFT analysis of the periodicity of reaction time, suggesting that neural contributions to infrequent lapses of attention in ADHD may be more task-dependent.”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 5. Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The pattern of findings, which is consistent with that seen for commission rate (Wodka et al., 2007), suggest that increased variability in ADHD, like impaired inhibitory control, appears to be a stable feature that is independent of the effect of other cognitive/executive domains.”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 5. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wodka et al., 2007 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Taken together, it appears that ISV is a stable trait directly related to inefficient response preparation mechanisms.”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 5. Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is important to note, however, that the frequencies that can be evaluated using this method are limited by the intervals at which stimuli are presented. In this study, the shortest frequency band was 0.074–0.202 Hz, a duration of 5–15 s. As such, FFT is useful in evaluating variability in the slower portion of the RT distribution (i.e., tau), but cannot provide analysis of more rapid variabilit”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 5. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It may be that abnormalities in pre-SMA circuits, important for response selection and preparation, contribute to ADHD-associated difficulties with response control, reflected as impaired response inhibition and increased variability in responding.”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 5. Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This does not appear to correlate directly to any demand of the task, and therefore likely represents inefficiency in meeting task demands.”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 5. Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As such, it is a good candidate for an intermediate endophenotypic trait that can be used in future studies to further refine our understanding of the relationship between genetic and physiological mechanisms associated with response preparation and ADHD.”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 5. Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The SMA, in particular the rostral “pre-SMA”, has been shown to be critical to response selection (Isoda and Hikosaka, 2007) and recent fMRI findings reveal that activation in this region is predictive of lower ISV for TD children (Suskauer, Simmonds, Fotedar et al., 2008), but not children with ADHD (Suskauer, Simmonds, Caffo et al., 2008).”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 5. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Isoda and Hikosaka, 2007
- Not checked yetcites Suskauer, Simmonds, Fotedar et al., 2008 source
- Not checked yetcites Suskauer, Simmonds, Caffo et al., 2008
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, our findings and those generated by Hervey et al. (2006) indicate that under conditions requiring higher degrees of response control, increased variability in ADHD is present throughout the RT distribution, regardless of ADHD subtype, reflecting inefficiency in neural mechanisms critical to engaging a state of preparedness to respond.”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 5. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hervey et al., 2006 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Reaction time distributions can be modeled as the sum of a normal component and an independent exponential component.
“This model posits that the distribution of reaction times can be represented as the sum of a normal (Gaussian) distribution of response times and an independent exponentially distributed variable (Leth-Steensen et al., 2000).”
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?
In the citing paper
“Research using ex-Gaussian parameters has shown that ADHD-related RTV is largely the result of an elevation in tau [10,13,32].”
From Reaction Time Variability in ADHD: A Review (2012) · cites this paper as [13]
In the citing paper
“Unfortunately, there have been very few studies that have examined the periodicity of long RTs, and results from these studies have been mixed in regard to the frequency at which long RTs occur [9,13,35,46].”
From Reaction Time Variability in ADHD: A Review (2012) · cites this paper as [13]
In the citing paper
“In general, FFT analyses of these studies revealed that the ADHD group differed from the controls owing to an increase in power in the frequency band reflecting periodic cycles about every 10-20 s (as hypothesized by Castellanos) that increase variance of the RT distribution.”
From Understanding the Effects of Stimulant Medications on Cognition in Individuals with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Decade of Progress (2011) · cites this paper as Vaurio et al (2009)
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“Cues were weighted toward green spaceships at a ratio of 3:1 (173 go cues; 44 no-go cues)”
§ Increased intra-individual reaction time variability in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder across response inhibition tasks with different cognitive demands > 2. Method > 2.3. Simple Go/No-go task
Reported 3 · recomputed 3.931818
Citations
Cites
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
Williams, J. B. W., & First, M. B. (2013) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.013.104 · Cited by 109,845
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
Widiger, T. A. (2000) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1037/10518-009 · Cited by 19,766
The Endophenotype Concept in Psychiatry: Etymology and Strategic Intentions
Gottesman, I. I., & Gould, T. D. (2003) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.160.4.636 · Cited by 5,615
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children
Miles-Mason, E. (2018) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781483392271.n537 · Cited by 4,133
Willcutt, E. G., Doyle, A. E., Nigg, J. T., Faraone, S. V., & Pennington, B. F. (2005) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.02.006 · Cited by 3,568
Neuroscience of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: the search for endophenotypes
Castellanos, F. X., & Tannock, R. (2002) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn896 · Cited by 1,827
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test
Smith, D. R. (2001) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-012058570-0/50008-2 · Cited by 1,417
Characterizing cognition in ADHD: beyond executive dysfunction
Castellanos, F. X., Sonuga-Barke, E. J. S., Milham, M. P., & Tannock, R. (2006) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.01.011 · Cited by 1,170
Simmonds, D. J., Pekar, J. J., & Mostofsky, S. H. (2008) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.07.015 · Cited by 1,015
Self-citationGaravan, H. (2002) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.2002.1326 · Cited by 988
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Reaction time variability in ADHD: A meta-analytic review of 319 studies
Kofler, M. J., Rapport, M. D., Sarver, D. E., Raiker, J. S., Orban, S. A., Friedman, L. M., & Kolomeyer, E. G. (2013) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2013.06.001 · Cited by 648
In the Zone or Zoning Out? Tracking Behavioral and Neural Fluctuations During Sustained Attention
Esterman, M. S., Noonan, S. K., Rosenberg, M. D., & Degutis, J. M. (2012) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhs261 · Cited by 531
Fair, D. A., Nigg, J. T., Iyer, S., Bathula, D., Mills, K. L., Dosenbach, N. U. F., Schlaggar, B. L., Mennes, M., Gutman, D., Bangaru, S., et al. (2013) · Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnsys.2012.00080 · Cited by 463
Self-citationReaction Time Variability in ADHD: A Review
Tamm, L., Narad, M. E., Antonini, T. N., O'Brien, K. M., Hawk, L. W., & Epstein, J. N. (2012) · Neurotherapeutics · doi:10.1007/s13311-012-0138-5 · Cited by 324
Swanson, J., Baler, R. D., & Volkow, N. D. (2011) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/npp.2010.160 · Cited by 252
Metadata
- Authors
- Vaurio, R. G., Simmonds, D. J., & Mostofsky, S. H.
- Affiliations
- Kennedy Krieger Institute (US)
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- Corresponding author
- Vaurio, Rebecca G.
- Venue
- Neuropsychologia
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-10
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 2389-2396
- ISSN
- 0028-3932 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4766847
- OpenAlex
- W1991798518
- Semantic Scholar
- 234b0b2b0abca5a0d5dc9dfb0fa4a34049db9974
- Cited by
- 240
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 23
- FWCI
- 10.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Neuropsychologia (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Johns Hopkins University
- National Institutes of Health
- Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, University of Wisconsin, Madison
- National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH085328)
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (K02NS044850, R01NS048527)
- National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR025005)
- 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, reaction time variability, response inhibition, go/no-go task, working memory load, task demands, attentional lapses, response preparation, slow response, endophenotypes, children
- MeSH terms
- Analysis of Variance, Attention, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Cognition Disorders, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Reaction Time, Spectrum Analysis, Normal Distribution
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
