Impulsivity in depressed children and adolescents: A comparison between behavioral and neuropsychological data
Abstract
Impulsivity at the neuropsychological and behavioral levels was investigated in a sample of drug-naive depressed children and adolescents. The performance of 21 patients with a current diagnosis of mood disorder was compared with that of 21 normal controls on tests of executive functions related to impulsivity (Matching Familiar Figures Test, Continuous Performance Test, Verbal Fluency, Stroop Test, and Walk-Don't Walk) and on impulsive/restless behavior on the Conners' Parent Rating Scale. Depressed children and adolescents showed a pattern of conservative response style, with slow reaction times and attentional problems, similar to that observed in adults, and a general delay/difficulty in response initiation on the Fluency Test. Depressed participants were rated by their parents as being significantly more impulsive/restless than controls. However, there was no evidence of an impulsive cognitive response style in more impulsive/restless patients. Symptom severity (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression) and subjective mood state (Children's Depression Inventory) were also taken into account.
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?
Unmedicated depressed individuals, including children, adolescents, and adults, perform worse than healthy controls on feature-based selective attention tasks requiring attention to a task-relevant feature while ignoring a distracting feature.
“Many investigations of color-word reaction times have revealed that unmedicated depressed individuals (including children, adolescents, and adults) perform worse than healthy controls when required to attend to a task-relevant feature (e.g., color) while simultaneously ignoring a distracting feature (e.g., semantic meaning)16–19, including in an international sample of n = 1008 MDD participants”
From Paying attention to attention in depression (2019) · cites this paper as [18]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 40 · Cited by 131
- Authors
- Cataldo, M. G., Nobile, M., Lorusso, M. L., Battaglia, M., & Molteni, M.
- Affiliations
- IRCCS Eugenio Medea (IT)
- Vita-Salute San Raffaele University (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Cataldo, Maria G.
- Venue
- Psychiatry Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2005-09
- Volume
- 136
- Issue
- 2-3
- Pages
- 123-133
- ISSN
- 0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1987777476
- Cited by
- 131
- References
- 40
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 1.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychiatry Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
- Keywords
- impulsivity, childhood depression, adolescent depression, executive function, response styles, attention deficits, reaction time, verbal fluency, Stroop task, continuous performance test, Matching Familiar Figures Test, parent ratings, symptom severity, mood states
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Child, Cognition Disorders, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Disruptive, Impulse Control, and Conduct Disorders, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Reaction Time, Severity of Illness Index, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
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
