Cited by 128Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

Perceptual and response interference in children with attention‐deficit hyperactivity disorder, and the effects of methylphenidate

Jonkman, L.M., Kemner, C., Verbaten, M.N., van Engeland, H., Kenemans, J.L., Camfferman, G., Buitelaar, J.K., Koelega, H.S.·1999·Psychophysiology

Abstract

Fourteen children with attention‐deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and 14 normal control children were compared with respect to stimulus‐ and response‐related processes. Subjects with ADHD took part in two additional sessions under methylphenidate or placebo. In both experiments, performance and electrophysiological measures such as the P2, N2, and P3 components of event‐related potential and electromyogram (EMG) activity were measured during an Eriksen flanker task. In both groups of children, reaction times (RTs) to arrow stimuli incongruent with the target were longer than those to neutral stimuli (response interference), which were again slower than RTs to target‐alone stimuli (perceptual interference). Children with ADHD made more errors to incongruent stimuli and showed more response interference. For correct responses, no differences between the groups in response interference effects on reaction time, P2, N2, and P3 latency, or EMG onset were found. Methylphenidate had a general enhancing effect on accuracy but did not specifically reduce interference from the flanking stimuli. Methylphenidate had no effects on RT, N2 and P2 latency, P3 amplitude or latency, or EMG activity. The conclusion that methylphenidate did not influence response processes contrasts sharply with findings reported by authors using the Sternberg memory search task.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1469-8986.3640419

Cites

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jonkman, L. M., Kemner, C., Verbaten, M. N., van Engeland, H., Kenemans, J. L., Camfferman, G., Buitelaar, J. K., & Koelega, H. S.
Affiliations
Utrecht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Jonkman, L.M.
Venue
Psychophysiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1999-07
Volume
36
Issue
4
Pages
419-429
ISSN
  • 0048-5772 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8986
OpenAlex
W2102391728
Cited by
128
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
FWCI
1.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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, methylphenidate, response interference, perceptual interference, flanker task, event-related potentials, muscle electrical activity, reaction time, children, stimulant medication effects
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Central Nervous System Stimulants, Attention, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Cerebral Cortex, Child, Double-Blind Method, Evoked Potentials, Female, Humans, Male, Methylphenidate, Neural Inhibition, Perceptual Masking, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Volition, Multivariate Analysis, Case-Control Studies

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