Information processing differences and similarities in adults with dyslexia and adults with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder during a Continuous Performance Test: a study of cortical potentials
Abstract
Twenty male adults with ADHD, 16 dyslexic adults, 15 comorbid adults, and 16 normal controls were compared on performance and underlying brain responses, during a cued Continuous Performance Test (O-X CPT), with the aim of discovering features of information processing differentiating between the groups. The study evaluated both cue- and target-related processes by analysing performance measures (errors, reaction time, and variability of reaction time), and event-related potentials (ERPs). Cue-related ERP components included the Cue-N2, Cue-P3, contingent negative variation (CNV) consisting of the CNV1, related to cue orienting, and the CNV2, related to response preparation. For targets, a distinction was made between response-related (Go), and inhibitory (Nogo) processing. Target-related components included the Go-P3, Nogo-N2, and Nogo-P3. Performance deficits were found only for the ADHD group, who demonstrated a faster decline in response speed with time-on-task and greater overall within-subject variability. No group differences were found for cue-related ERP components. Yet, controlling for group differences in internalising problems, inhibitory control was reduced in all clinical groups compared to controls, as demonstrated by an absence of frontal amplification of P3 in the Nogo condition, relative to the Go condition. For the ADHD group, in contrast to the comorbid and the dyslexic group, this effect remained after controlling for externalising symptoms, indicating that only for the ADHD group deficiencies in inhibitory control were not explained by externalising behaviour.
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?
Increased reaction time variability has been documented in both pediatric and adult ADHD samples.
“In addition, increased RTV has been documented in both pediatric [16,17] and adult ADHD samples [18,19].”
From Reaction Time Variability in ADHD: A Review (2012) · cites this paper as [19]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 82 · Cited by 56
- Authors
- Dhar, M., Been, P. H., Minderaa, R. B., & Althaus, M.
- Affiliations
- Ghent University (BE)
- University of Groningen (NL)
- University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Dhar, Monica
- ORCID
- Dhar, Monica
- Venue
- Neuropsychologia
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-08
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 3045-3056
- ISSN
- 0028-3932 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2144705272
- Cited by
- 56
- References
- 82
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 4.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Neuropsychologia (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
- 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
- dyslexia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, comorbidities, continuous performance test, event-related potentials, inhibitory control, P300, N2 component, contingent negative variation, response preparation, reaction time variability, adults
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Analysis of Variance, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Brain Mapping, Cerebral Cortex, Cues, Decision Making, Discrimination, Psychological, Dyslexia, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Processes, Neuropsychological Tests, Reaction Time, Statistics as Topic, 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