CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Delayed goal-directed processing underlies inhibitory control challenges in adult ADHD

Open access
Osborne, Jahla B., Sellers, Jacob, Zhang, Han, Wang, Su, Liberatore, Sarah, Sripada, Chandra, Shah, Priti, Jonides, John·2026·Scientific Reports
DOI 10.1038/s41598-026-42307-3PMC PMC13125289
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

It is well documented that ADHD is associated with challenges in inhibitory control. However, the underlying cognitive mechanisms that give rise to these difficulties are not well established. Here, we employ a novel “forced-response” method with computational modeling to disentangle the time-dependent control of habitual and goal-directed processing in response-conflict tasks in adults with ADHD. We use a converging approach which compares individuals with ADHD against neurotypical individuals and individuals with ADHD off medication against on medication on two conflict tasks (Simon and Flanker). The forced-response method tracks moment-to-moment cognitive processing from stimulus to response, and data from this method was modeled using a computational model that distinguishes the temporal dynamics of habitual and goal-directed processes. Converging results revealed that ADHD was associated with delayed goal-directed processing but not rushed habitual processing when compared to both neurotypical individuals and to the same individuals on medication in both conflict tasks. These findings mark an important step toward elucidating the underlying mechanisms that lead to real-life challenges in inhibiting distracting information in adults with ADHD.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In adults with ADHD, forced-response Simon and Flanker tasks plus computational modeling showed that inhibitory-control differences are explained by delayed goal-directed response preparation, not rushed habitual preparation. This delay appeared off medication relative to neurotypical adults and relative to the same ADHD participants on medication.

Key findings

  • In the Simon task, goal-directed responses were prepared more slowly for ADHD participants off medication (µg = 396 ms) than neurotypical participants (µg = 377 ms), Δµg = 19.2 ms, 95% CI [8, 30], pd = 1.00; habitual preparation did not differ (Δµh = −2.6 ms, CI [−20, 15], pd = 0.616).
  • Within ADHD participants in the Simon task, goal-directed responses were slower off medication (µg = 396 ms) than on medication (µg = 375 ms), Δµg = 20 ms, CI [9, 31], pd = 1.00.
  • In the Flanker task, the same directional pattern appeared versus neurotypical participants: ADHD off medication µg = 431 ms vs. neurotypical µg = 423 ms, Δµg = 8.2 ms, CI [−1.51, 18], pd = 0.951; within ADHD, off medication µg = 431 ms vs. on medication µg = 421 ms, Δµg = 9.8 ms, CI [0.435, 19], pd = 0.980.
  • Habitual processing was not rushed in ADHD: Flanker Δµh versus neurotypical = −6 ms, CI [−17.9, 5.48], pd = 0.850; Simon Δµh versus neurotypical = −2.6 ms, CI [−20, 15], pd = 0.616.

Methods

  • Adults with ADHD and age/gender-matched neurotypical participants completed forced-response Simon and Flanker tasks; ADHD participants also completed both tasks off and on their prescribed ADHD medication in a counterbalanced cross-over design with 72-hr wash-in/wash-out periods. Final analyzed samples were 37 ADHD and 36 neurotypical for Simon, and 35 ADHD and 35 neurotypical for Flanker; ADHD diagnosis was verified with SCID-5-RV questions.
  • In the forced-response method, participants responded 2000 ms after trial start, with stimulus onset varied trial-by-trial; processing time was calculated as PT = RT − t, yielding speed-accuracy functions across the processing time course. Each task included 480 test trials.
  • A computational model treated habitual and goal-directed response preparation as independent normal distributions, computed joint preparation-state probabilities, and used weights (α, βh, βg) to predict accuracy. Bayesian posterior differences were estimated in PyMC with MCMC, reporting 95% credible intervals and probability of direction (pd).

Limitations

  • Stated: groups were matched on age and gender, but education level and socioeconomic status may have differed; the model is limited to response latencies for habitual and goal-directed responding and may not capture other ADHD-related cognitive differences; the sample was 79.20% women and 79.20% white, limiting generalizability; procedures were remote and medication adherence was self-reported without pharmacological confirmation; ADHD participants took varied medications, with small subsamples preventing brand/class comparisons; findings are group-level only, and Simon/Flanker tasks often show a reliability paradox for individual differences.
  • Evident from the text: medication conditions were not described as blinded or placebo-controlled, and the ADHD sample was predominantly inattentive subtype (n = 27) with high self-reported comorbidity, which may further limit generalizability.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-026-42307-3

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

14 of 27 cited sources checked · 11 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Treating RT and accuracy as distinct outcomes does not appropriately account for the speed-accuracy trade-off that exists between the two parameters.

    “However, treating RT and accuracy as distinct outcomes does not appropriately account for the speed-accuracy trade-off that exists between the two parameters24,25.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [24] Draheim, C., Mashburn, C. A., Martin, J. D. & Engle, R. W. Reaction time in differential and developmental research: A review and commentary on the problems and alternatives. Psychol. Bull. 145, 508–535 (2019). source
    • cites [25] Lee, T. G., Sellers, J., Jonides, J. & Zhang, H. The forced-response method: A new chronometric approach to measure conflict processing. Behav. Res. 57, 15 (2024). source
  • Premisecitation

    Response preparation and response expression are separable.

    “recent studies further suggest that response preparation and response expression are separable29–32.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim4 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [29] Hardwick, R. M., Forrence, A. D., Costello, M. G., Zackowski, K. & Haith, A. M. Age-related increases in reaction time result from slower preparation, not delayed initiation. J. Neurophysiol. 128, 582–592 (2022). source
    • cites [30] Wong, A. L., Goldsmith, J., Forrence, A. D., Haith, A. M. & Krakauer, J. W. Reaction times can reflect habits rather than computations. eLife 6, e28075 (2017). source
    • cites [31] Zhang, H., Sellers, J., Lee, T. G. & Jonides, J. The temporal dynamics of visual attention. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 154, 435–456 (2025). source
    • cites [32] Haith, A. M., Pakpoor, J. & Krakauer, J. W. Independence of movement preparation and movement initiation. J. Neurosci. 36, 3007–3015 (2016). source
  • Premisecitation

    Empirical evidence for impaired inhibitory control in ADHD remains mixed.

    “However, empirical evidence for impaired inhibitory control in ADHD remains mixed9–17.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 9 sources checked
    • cites [9] Jonkman, L. et al. Perceptual and response interference in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and the effects of methylphenidate. Psychophysiology 36, 419–429 (1999). source
    • cites [10] Vaidya, C. J. et al. Altered neural substrates of cognitive control in childhood ADHD: Evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging. Am. J. Psychiatry 162, 1605–1613 (2005). source
    • cites [11] Gohil, K., Bluschke, A., Roessner, V., Stock, A.-K. & Beste, C. ADHD patients fail to maintain task goals in face of subliminally and consciously induced cognitive conflicts. Psychol. Med. 47, 1771–1783 (2017). source

      The Introduction reports inconsistent findings on how subliminal stimuli affect information processing in ADHD, including differing negative-priming results. It also says interference control is closely related to inhibition. That supports mixed evidence for a related, specific process, but does not establish that evidence for impaired inhibitory control generally is mixed. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [12] Suarez, I. et al. Deciphering interference control in adults with ADHD by using distribution analyses and electromyographic activity. Acta Psychol. 159, 85–92 (2015). source
    • cites [13] McLaughlin, E. N. Cognitive inhibition in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. http://hdl.handle.net/10222/55856 (2002).

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [14] Konrad, K., Neufang, S., Hanisch, C., Fink, G. R. & Herpertz-Dahlmann, B. Dysfunctional attentional networks in children with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Evidence from an event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Biol. Psychiatry 59, 643–651 (2006). source
    • cites [15] Sparkes, S. J. The influence of ADHD and experimental context on components of attention in children. http://hdl.handle.net/10222/54849 (2006).

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [16] Tucha, O. et al. Effects of methylphenidate on multiple components of attention in children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Psychopharmacology 185, 315–326 (2006). source
    • cites [17] Hasler, R. et al. Attention-related EEG markers in adult ADHD. Neuropsychologia 87, 120–133 (2016). source
  • Findingown data

    In the Simon task, goal-directed responses were prepared more slowly for ADHD participants off medication compared to their performance on medication.

    “Critically, strong evidence emerged that goal-directed responses were prepared more slowly for ADHD participants when they refrained from taking medication, µg = 396 ms, CI [387, 0.404] compared to their performance while taking medication, µg = 375 ms, CI [368, 383]—an estimated within group difference (Δµg) of 20 ms, CI9,31, pd = 1.00”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In the Simon task, ADHD participants off medication showed wider variability in the timing of goal preparation compared to neurotypical participants.

    “Additionally, participants with ADHD without medication showed wider variability in the timing of goal preparation compared to neurotypical participants (Δσg = 19 ms, CI [3.32, 35], pd = 0.992).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 23
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 26

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Habitual processing is fast, so responses associated with habitual processes are often prepared early in time.

    “Habitual processing is fast, so responses associated with habitual processes are often prepared early in time27,28.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [27] Hardwick, R. M., Forrence, A. D., Krakauer, J. W. & Haith, A. M. Time-dependent competition between goal-directed and habitual response preparation. Nat. Hum. Behav. 3, 1252–1262 (2019). source
    • cites [28] Adkins, T. J. & Lee, T. G. Reward Accelerates the Preparation of Goal-directed Actions under Conflict. J. Cogn. Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_02072 (2022). source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Goal-directed processing is effortful and slow, and thus goal-directed responses are often prepared more slowly compared to habitual responses.

    “In contrast, goal-directed processing is effortful and slow, and thus goal-directed responses are often prepared more slowly compared to habitual responses27,28.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [27] Hardwick, R. M., Forrence, A. D., Krakauer, J. W. & Haith, A. M. Time-dependent competition between goal-directed and habitual response preparation. Nat. Hum. Behav. 3, 1252–1262 (2019). source
    • cites [28] Adkins, T. J. & Lee, T. G. Reward Accelerates the Preparation of Goal-directed Actions under Conflict. J. Cogn. Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_02072 (2022). source

      The Replication Study reports that goal-directed responses took longer to prepare than automatic responses (348 versus 213 ms), supporting the comparison. The Introduction describes additional processing to resolve conflict, but the paper does not establish that effortfulness causes the slower preparation. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    As RT increases the Simon effect typically decreases, whereas the Flanker effect typically increases with RT.

    “These tasks also differ in their temporal dynamics: as RT increases the Simon effect typically decreases, whereas the Flanker effect typically increases with RT33,36.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [33] Mansfield, K. L., Van Der Molen, M. W., Falkenstein, M. & Van Boxtel, G. J. M. Temporal dynamics of interference in Simon and Eriksen tasks considered within the context of a dual-process model. Brain. Cogn. 82, 353–363 (2013). source
    • cites [36] Hübner, R. & Töbel, L. Conflict resolution in the Eriksen flanker task: Similarities and differences to the Simon task. PLoS One. 14, e0214203 (2019). source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    ADHD is associated with intact habitual processing but delayed goal-directed processing in a different context (visual search).

    “These results suggest that ADHD is associated with intact habitual processing but delayed goal-directed processing in a different context (visual search).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [42] Zhang, H., Abagis, T. R., Steeby, C. J. & Jonides, J. Lingering on distraction: Examining distractor rejection in adults with ADHD. Vis. Cogn. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2024.2328379 (2024). source

      The Abstract reports similar initial distractor capture in adults with and without ADHD, but longer disengagement among those with ADHD; it also describes disengagement as goal-driven. It does not establish that habitual processing is intact: the process it measured at initial capture is described as salience-driven, not habitual. The finding is also limited to adults in this visual-search task. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Zhang et al. (2024) found that ADHD and neurotypical individuals share similar levels of initial capture and initial fixation positions, but ADHD participants had more subsequent fixations and lingering fixations on distractor stimuli before disengaging in favor of the task goal.

    “In the eye-tracking literature, Zhang et al. (2024) showcased that ADHD and neurotypical individuals share similar levels of initial capture and initial fixation positions, but ADHD participants had more subsequent fixations and lingering fixations on distractor stimuli before disengaging in favor of the task goal42.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [42] Zhang, H., Abagis, T. R., Steeby, C. J. & Jonides, J. Lingering on distraction: Examining distractor rejection in adults with ADHD. Vis. Cogn. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2024.2328379 (2024). source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the Flanker task, goal-directed responses were prepared more slowly for ADHD participants off medication compared to neurotypical participants, with a 95% credible interval containing 0 and pd = 0.951.

    “Importantly, goal-directed responses showed a similar directional trend as the Simon results, with responses prepared more slowly for participants with ADHD (µg = 431 ms, CI [424, 437]) compared to neurotypical participants (µg = 423 ms, CI [415, 430]). This resulted in an estimated group difference (Δµg) of 8.2 ms and a corresponding 95% credible interval that contains 0 (CI [−1.51, 18]), as well”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Across both tasks, habitual responses required less time to prepare than goal-directed responses.

    “For the Simon task, habitual responses required less time to prepare (µh = 261 ms, 95% credible interval [CI] [252, 269]) compared to goal-directed responses (overall posterior median, µg = 386 ms, CI [380, 392]) across both groups”
    • Also stated in: § ADHD (off medication) vs. neurotypical · plain
      “Overall, habitual responses in the Flanker task required less time to be prepared (µh = 335 ms, 95% credible interval [CI] [329, 341]) compared to goal-directed responses (µg = 427 ms, CI [422, 432])”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Within the ADHD sample, participants self-reported comorbid conditions: generalized anxiety disorder (76.3%), major depressive disorder (60.5%), eating disorder (13.2%), post-traumatic stress disorder (18.4%), obsessive compulsive disorder (18.4%), bipolar disorder (5.3%), and dissociative disorder (5.3%).

    “Additionally, ADHD often co-occurs with other psychological conditions and within our sample ADHD participants self-reported: generalized anxiety disorder (76.3%), major depressive disorder (60.5%), eating disorder (13.2%), post-traumatic stress disorder (18.4%), obsessive compulsive disorder (18.4%), bipolar disorder (5.3%), and dissociative disorder (5.3%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the Flanker task, goal-directed responding speed differences reduced after second exposure to the task, and differences re-emerged after neurotypical participants were re-exposed to tasks a second time.

    “In the Flanker task goal-directed responding speed differences reduced after second exposure to the task. Differences re-emerged after neurotypical participants were re-exposed to tasks a second time (See Supplementary Materials).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Within the ADHD sample, the majority met criteria for the inattentive subtype (n = 27), followed by the combined (n = 9) and hyperactive (n = 2) subtypes.

    “ADHD can be further categorized into subtypes based on the predominant presentation of symptoms and within our sample majority of ADHD participants met criteria for the inattentive subtype (n = 27), followed by the combined (n = 9) and hyperactive (n = 2) subtypes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    ADHD participants experienced a global acceleration of habit and goal-directed responding when taking ADHD-related medication in the Flanker task but only accelerated goal-directed responding in the Simon task.

    “We found it interesting that ADHD participants experienced a global acceleration of habit and goal-directed responding when taking ADHD-related medication in the Flanker task but only accelerated goal-directed responding in the Simon task.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    ADHD is associated with delayed goal-directed processing but not rushed habitual processing when compared to both neurotypical individuals and to the same individuals on medication in both conflict tasks.

    “Converging results revealed that ADHD was associated with delayed goal-directed processing but not rushed habitual processing when compared to both neurotypical individuals and to the same individuals on medication in both conflict tasks.”
    • Also stated in: § Introduction · boosted
      “Our results converged across tasks and participants and showed that delayed goal-directed processing, not rushed habitual processing, underlies the inhibitory control differences in ADHD.”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
      “across both tasks, goal-directed responses were consistently prepared more slowly for ADHD participants when abstaining from ADHD medication compared to neurotypical participants and compared to ADHD participants taking medication.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The final Simon task sample consisted of 37 ADHD participants who met DSM-5 criteria for ADHD and reported routinely taking prescription ADHD medication, and 36 neurotypical participants matched by age and gender.

    “Therefore, the final Simon task sample consisted of 37 ADHD participants who all met DSM-5 criteria for ADHD and reported routinely taking prescription ADHD medication, and 36 neurotypical participants (age and gender matched).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    ADHD and neurotypical participants were matched by age (+/- 4 years) and gender, except for one case in which a 27-year-old woman with ADHD was matched with a 35-year-old neurotypical woman (+8 years).

    “To ensure valid group comparisons, we aimed to match ADHD and neurotypical participants by age (+/- 4 years) and gender, except for one case in which a 27-year-old woman with ADHD was matched with a 35-year-old neurotypical woman (+ 8 years).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Eighty-nine eligible ADHD participants were randomized to medication order: on-medication then off-medication (n = 42) or off-medication then on-medication (n = 47).

    “Eighty-nine eligible ADHD participants were randomized to either complete tasks “on-medication” and then “off-medication” (n = 42) or the other way around (n = 47).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    When goal-directed processing is slowed, there is a longer window during which only the habitual response is prepared and available for expression, and when habitual responses are expressed before the goal is fully prepared, behavior manifests as impaired inhibitory control.

    “When goal-directed processing is slowed, there is a longer window during which only the habitual response is prepared and available for expression. When habitual responses are expressed before the goal is fully prepared, behavior manifests as impaired inhibitory control.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The SCID-5-RV was used to verify that participants who self-reported a clinical diagnosis of ADHD also currently met DSM-5 criteria for ADHD.

    “The SCID-5-RV was used to ensure that participants who self-reported a clinical diagnosis of ADHD also currently met DSM-5 criteria for ADHD.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    In total, 45 neurotypical participants completed both tasks.

    “In total, 45 neurotypical participants completed both tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Ten participants (ADHD = 6, neurotypical = 4) were excluded for not meeting the joint criterion, and four other ADHD participants were excluded for deviating from the study protocol.

    “Ten participants (ADHD = 6, neurotypical = 4) were excluded for not meeting this outlined joint criterion. Four other ADHD participants were excluded for deviating from the study protocol (e.g., not adhering to task or medication arm order).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The source of interference differs across Simon and Flanker tasks: in the Simon task, interference emerges from a spatial-location mismatch between stimulus and response mappings, while in the Flanker task interference stems from irrelevant distractors presented alongside the target.

    “However, the source of interference differs across tasks. In the Simon task, interference emerges from a spatial-location mismatch between stimulus and response mappings, while in the Flanker task interference stems from irrelevant distractors presented alongside the target35.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [35] Mückschel, M., Stock, A.-K., Dippel, G., Chmielewski, W. & Beste, C. Interacting sources of interference during sensorimotor integration processes. Neuroimage 125, 342–349 (2016). source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The computational model distinguishes the temporal dynamics of habitual and goal-directed processes.

    “data from this method was modeled using a computational model that distinguishes the temporal dynamics of habitual and goal-directed processes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Seventy-three eligible neurotypical participants were randomized to task order: Flanker then Simon (n = 36) or Simon then Flanker (n = 37).

    “Seventy-three eligible neurotypical participants were randomized to either first complete the Flanker task followed by the Simon task (n = 36) or the other way around (n = 37).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The final Flanker task sample consisted of 35 ADHD participants and 35 neurotypical participants matched by age and gender.

    “The final Flanker task sample consisted of 35 ADHD participants and 35 neurotypical participants (age and gender matched).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Participants were required to self-report medication status before each task, and sessions were terminated if they were outside the adherence protocol.

    “Participants were required to self-report their medication status prior to completing each online task, and if they were outside of their adherence protocol, the session was terminated followed by a reminder message to either abstain or continue medication for at least 72 h to participate in the specific leg of the study.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Independent t-tests revealed no significant age or gender differences between ADHD and neurotypical groups.

    “Importantly, independent t-tests (two-sided) revealed no significant age (ADHD Mean age = 29.97, neurotypical Mean age = 30.49, t(df = 75) = −0.31, p = 0.759) or gender (ADHD Women = 29, neurotypical Women = 32, t(df = 68) = 0.17, p = 0.865) differences emerged between groups.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The cross-over design allowed each ADHD participant to serve as their own control in analyses of the effect of medication.

    “This study design feature allowed each ADHD participant to serve as their own control in later analyses of the effect of medication.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Each medication condition required a minimum 72-hour wash-in or wash-out period.

    “Each medication condition required a minimum 72-hr wash-in or wash-out period.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    ADHD participants completed Simon and Flanker tasks under both medicated and unmedicated conditions, with task order and medication status counterbalanced.

    “We utilized a cross-over design in which ADHD participants completed Simon and Flanker tasks (task order counterbalanced) under both medicated and unmedicated conditions (medication status counterbalanced).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    In total, 45 ADHD participants submitted task data for both tasks on and off medication.

    “In total, 45 ADHD participants submitted task data for both tasks on and off medication.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Participants were excluded if they did not produce on-time responses within +/- 175 ms of the go signal on at least 35% of trials, or if their accuracy after 750 ms of processing time was less than 70%.

    “Specifically, participants were excluded if: (1) they did not produce “on time” demanded responses within +/- 175 ms of the “go” signal (2000 ms) on at least 35% of trials, and (2) their accuracy after 750 ms of processing time was less than 70%.”
    • Also stated in: § Participants · plain
      “Some participants were excluded from data analyses because of poor task performance on one or both tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted).

    Premisecitation

    Impairment in inhibitory control is a core deficit in ADHD.

    “A long-standing view posits that impairment in inhibitory control, or the ability to disengage from task-irrelevant information to enact goal-directed behavior7, is a core deficit in ADHD8.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [8] Barkley, R. A. Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions: Constructing a unifying theory of ADHD. Psychol. Bull. 121, 65–94 (1997). source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Prior research indicates these tasks utilize distinct cognitive mechanisms to resolve conflict.

    “Prior research also indicates these tasks utilize distinct cognitive mechanisms to resolve conflict33,35.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [33] Mansfield, K. L., Van Der Molen, M. W., Falkenstein, M. & Van Boxtel, G. J. M. Temporal dynamics of interference in Simon and Eriksen tasks considered within the context of a dual-process model. Brain. Cogn. 82, 353–363 (2013). source
    • cites [35] Mückschel, M., Stock, A.-K., Dippel, G., Chmielewski, W. & Beste, C. Interacting sources of interference during sensorimotor integration processes. Neuroimage 125, 342–349 (2016). source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The overall sample spans 77 participants (ADHD = 38, neurotypical = 39) whose data were analyzed from at least one task.

    “In total, the overall sample spans 77 participants (ADHD = 38, neurotypical = 39) whose data were analyzed from at least one task.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisenone given

    The Simon and Flanker tasks are similar in that they require participants to overcome irrelevant task features in favor of the goal.

    “These tasks are similar in that they require participants to overcome irrelevant task features in favor of the goal.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Common indices of inhibitory control often lack the specificity needed to pinpoint the precise mechanism(s) in which inhibitory control might be impaired.

    “Common indices of inhibitory control often lack the specificity needed to pinpoint the precise mechanism(s) in which inhibitory control might be impaired.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    After data quality check and matching, the final neurotypical samples consisted of 35 participants in the Flanker task and 36 participants in the Simon task.

    “After completing a data quality check and matching neurotypical participants to ADHD participants by age and gender, the final neurotypical samples consisted of 35 participants in the Flanker task and 36 participants in the Simon task.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Preliminary questions from the SCID-5-RV were used to ensure that neurotypical participants did not show signs or symptoms of ADHD.

    “Likewise, preliminary questions from the SCID-5-RV were also used to ensure that participants considered for the neurotypical group did not show any signs or symptoms of ADHD.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The computational model can disentangle the control dynamics of habitual and goal-directed responses that jointly shape the overall behavioral pattern.

    “Critically, by revealing the entire time course of cognitive processing, we can computationally disentangle the control dynamics of habitual and goal-directed responses that jointly shape the overall behavioral pattern.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The sample was overly representative of white women, which may limit the generalizability of the results to the broader ADHD population.

    “We acknowledge that our sample was overly representative of white women and therefore, may limit the generalizability of our results to the broader ADHD population.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The order of the two tasks for neurotypical participants was counterbalanced.

    “The order of the two tasks for the participants in the neurotypical arm of the study was counterbalanced (see Fig. 7B).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
40 of 40

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Habitual and goal-directed responses are prepared independently and simultaneously.

    “This computational model assumes habitual and goal-directed responses are prepared independently and simultaneously.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The time needed to prepare a given type of response is normally distributed.

    “The model also assumes that the time needed to prepare a given type of response is normally distributed.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most previous studies of inhibitory control in ADHD have examined children.

    “Additionally, most of these studies have examined children, highlighting a gap in understanding adult-ADHD, the focus of the present study.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Participants accurately reported their medication adherence during the wash-in and wash-out periods.

    “Another important consideration is that all study procedures were conducted remotely, relying on participants to self-report their medication adherence during the 72-hour “wash-in” and “wash-out” periods.”
4 of 4

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Flanker habitual-response effect is called strong despite not meeting the stated criteria

    Minor

    The reported 95% credible interval includes zero, and the printed pd of 0.975 is not larger than 0.975. Neither meets the paper's stated criterion for strong evidence.

  • Simon medication comparison reports an impossible credible interval

    Minor

    The interval [387, 0.404] has an upper bound below both its lower bound and the reported 396 ms estimate. The same off-medication estimate is reported elsewhere with an upper bound of 404 ms.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. McLaughlin, E. N. Cognitive inhibition in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. http://hdl.handle.net/10222/55856 (2002).
  2. Sparkes, S. J. The influence of ADHD and experimental context on components of attention in children. http://hdl.handle.net/10222/54849 (2006).
  3. Ridderinkhof, K. R., van den Wildenberg, W. P. M., Wijnen, J. & Burle, B. Response Inhibition in Conflict Tasks Is Revealed in Delta Plots. In Response Inhibition in Conflict Tasks is Revealed in Delta Plots 369–377 (The Guilford Press, 2004).

Cited by

Still being checked.

Related

Authors
Osborne, J. B., Sellers, J., Zhang, H., Wang, S., Liberatore, S., Sripada, C., Shah, P., & Jonides, J.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Osborne, Jahla B.
Venue
Scientific Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2026-03-16
Volume
16
Issue
1
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41598-026-42307-3
PMC
PMC13125289
OpenAlex
W7137022984
Cited by
2
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 2
FWCI
9.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies, University of Michigan (Rackham Graduate Student Research Grants)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R21MH129909)
  • National Science Foundation (2238151)
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, inhibitory control, response conflict, Simon task, flanker task, computational modeling, ADHD medication
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Cognition, Conflict, Psychological, Female, Goals, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Male, Reaction Time, 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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-31.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-31.

Cited sources are checked by 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