Cited by 91Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

Functional MRI reveals different response inhibition between adults and children with ADHD

Lei, Du, Du, Mingying, Wu, Min, Chen, Taolin, Huang, Xiaoqi, Du, Xiaoxia, Bi, Feng, Kemp, Graham J. +1 more·2015·Neuropsychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been recognized as a disorder of executive function, and a number of functional MRI (fMRI) studies have been conducted to investigate the altered brain activation patterns between ADHD patients and healthy controls. However, the findings across different studies have been inconsistent, and the different neural mechanisms between adults and children with ADHD remain unclear. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of fMRI studies to further investigate and compare the abnormalities in adults and children with ADHD during motor response inhibition. METHOD: Activation likelihood estimation (ALE) was used to investigate brain activation differences between ADHD patients and controls, and a subtraction meta-analysis was performed to compare adult and child patients. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis using ALE detected significantly decreased activation during response inhibition in ADHD in the supplementary motor area, insula, caudate, and precentral gyrus, as well as increased activation in the postcentral gyrus, inferior frontal gyrus, and precuneus. The activation decreases in the right caudate were greater in child ADHD patients than adult ADHD patients. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis identified dysfunction in several areas of the motor inhibition network that may play a role in the abnormal neural mechanisms of response inhibition in ADHD. The comparison of child and adult subgroups raises the possibility that the persistence of functional abnormalities of the caudate may be an important factor in whether ADHD persists.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/neu0000200

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Meta-analyses of fMRI studies of inhibitory control find most consistently reduced activation in right, left or bilateral IFC, MFC/ACC/SMA and striato-thalamic regions, with some studies also finding DLPFC underactivation.

    “In conclusion, meta-analyses of fMRI studies of inhibitory control find most consistently reduced activation in right, left or bilateral IFC, MFC/ACC/SMA and striato-thalamic regions with some studies also finding DLPFC underactivation (Hart et al., 2013; McCarthy et al., 2014; Lei et al., 2015; Norman et al., 2016).”
  • Enhanced activation was also observed predominantly in DMN occipital regions in the meta-analysis of 55 fMRI tasks including cognitive control, emotion processing and reward tasks and in a meta-analysis of motor response inhibition.

    “Enhanced activation was also observed predominantly in DMN occipital regions in the meta-analysis of 55 fMRI tasks including cognitive control, emotion processing and reward tasks (Cortese et al., 2012) and in a meta-analysis of motor response inhibition (Lei et al., 2015).”
  • Another fMRI meta-analysis that included 16 Go/no-Go and 8 Stop task fMRI studies confirmed underactivation in left ACC/SMA, bilateral DLPFC, right caudate, left thalamus and left IFC.

    “Another fMRI meta-analysis that included 16 Go/no-Go and 8 Stop task fMRI studies confirmed the findings of underactivation previously observed in left ACC/SMA, bilateral DLPFC, right caudate, left thalamus and left IFC (Lei et al., 2015).”
  • Children had significantly more underactivation in right caudate than adults with ADHD.

    “children had significantly more underactivation in right caudate than adults with ADHD (Lei et al., 2015).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lei, D., Du, M., Wu, M., Chen, T., Huang, X., Du, X., Bi, F., Kemp, G. J., & Gong, Q.
Affiliations
  • West China Hospital of Sichuan University (CN)
  • East China Normal University (CN)
  • West China Medical Center of Sichuan University (CN)
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
Venue
Neuropsychology
Published
2015-11
Volume
29
Issue
6
Pages
874-881
ISSN
  • 0894-4105 (ISSN-L)
  • 1931-1559
OpenAlex
W1724640658
Cited by
91
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6
FWCI
5.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation (81220108013 and 81227002)
  • Sponsor name not included (IRT1272)
  • China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2012M521696 and 2013T60856)
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, response inhibition, executive function, supplementary motor area, caudate nucleus, insula, children versus adults, activation likelihood estimation
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Caudate Nucleus, Cerebral Cortex, Child, Humans, Human Development, Inhibition, Psychological, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Psychomotor Performance

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