The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Lack of inhibition: a motivational deficit in children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and children with traumatic brain injury
Abstract
Recent research has demonstrated that both brain-injured children and children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) suffer from response inhibition deficits. To investigate whether these deficits can be influenced by motivational factors, the stop-signal task was performed with and without reward contingencies for successful inhibition. Three groups of children between 8 and 12 years of age, participated in the study: 31 children with ADHD, 37 with traumatic brain injuries (TBI), and 26 normal controls. Results indicated that, although all groups showed comparable learning effects, reward contingencies had different effects on the groups. Whereas the performance of children with ADHD under reward contingencies were brought up to the performance level of normal controls, rewards were found less effective at improving response inhibition in children with TBI. The results further support a motivational/energetic explanation of the inhibitory deficit in children with ADHD, and of a primary response inhibition deficit due to structural brain damage in children with TBI.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“It explained a phenomenon that performance can be improved to normal levels under conditions that are thought to increase arousal and/or motivation, such as the provision of external rewards (Konrad et al., 2000; Slusarek et al., 2001) or the faster presentation of stimuli (Scheres et al., 2001).”
From A Review of Heterogeneity in Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (2019) · cites this paper as Konrad et al., 2000
In the citing paper
“In a previous behavioral study, we could demonstrate that boys with ADHD were particularly hyperresponsive to social rewards (i.e., smiles and friendly faces), indicating that the motivational context as defined by the type of attainable reward plays a significant role in influencing goal-directed behavior in children and adolescents with ADHD versus typically developing controls (Geurts et al., 2”
From Differentiating neural reward responsiveness in autism versus ADHD (2014) · cites this paper as Konrad et al., 2000
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
Sergeant, J. A. (2005) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2004.09.010 · Cited by 589
The impact of reinforcement contingencies on AD/HD: A review and theoretical appraisal
Luman, M., Oosterlaan, J., & Sergeant, J. A. (2005) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2004.11.001 · Cited by 541
“Reinforcement contingencies are found to normalize behavior that characterizes AD/HD in school, sports, and home settings, and to improve academic functioning (Hupp, Reitman, Northup, O’Callaghan, & LeBlanc, 2002; Kelly & McCain, 1995; Pelham et al., 1993; Pelham & Hinshaw, 1992; Rapport, Murphy, & Bailey, 1982).”
BackgroundAlderson, R. M., Rapport, M. D., & Kofler, M. J. (2007) · Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology · doi:10.1007/s10802-007-9131-6 · Cited by 426
“Another study reported three additional conditions that examined the effects of reinforcement and repetition (Konrad et al. 2000a).”
BackgroundA Review of Heterogeneity in Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
Luo, Y., Weibman, D., Halperin, J. M., & Li, X. (2019) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2019.00042 · Cited by 394
“It explained a phenomenon that performance can be improved to normal levels under conditions that are thought to increase arousal and/or motivation, such as the provision of external rewards (Konrad et al., 2000; Slusarek et al., 2001) or the faster presentation of stimuli (Scheres et al.”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Konrad, K., Gauggel, S., Manz, A., & Schöll, M.
- Affiliations
- RWTH Aachen University (DE)
- Venue
- Child Neuropsychology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2000-12
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 286-296
- ISSN
- 0929-7049 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-4136
- OpenAlex
- W2018757898
- Cited by
- 126
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 0.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Child Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen) (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
- response inhibition, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, traumatic brain injury, motivational factors, reward contingency, stop-signal task, inhibitory deficits, children, learning effects
- MeSH terms
- Analysis of Variance, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Brain Injuries, Child, Female, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Male, Motivation, Reaction Time, Reward
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
