Cited by 132Child Welfare and AdoptionNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

The effect of early deprivation on executive attention in middle childhood

Open access
Loman, Michelle M., Johnson, Anna E., Westerlund, Alissa, Pollak, Seth D., Nelson, Charles A., Gunnar, Megan R.·2013·Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: Children reared in deprived environments, such as institutions for the care of orphaned or abandoned children, are at increased risk for attention and behavior regulation difficulties. This study examined the neurobehavioral correlates of executive attention in post institutionalized (PI) children. Methods: The performance and event‐related potentials (ERPs) of 10‐ and 11‐year‐old internationally adopted PI children on two executive attention tasks, Go/No‐go and Flanker, were compared with two groups: children internationally adopted early from foster care (PF) and nonadopted children (NA). Results: Behavioral measures suggested problems with sustained attention, with PIs performing more poorly on Go trials and not on No‐go trials of the Go/No‐go and made more errors on both congruent and incongruent trials on the Flanker. ERPs suggested differences in inhibitory control and error monitoring, as PIs had smaller N2 amplitude on Go/No‐go and smaller error‐related negativity on Flanker. Conclusions: This pattern of results raises questions regarding the nature of attention difficulties for PI children. The behavioral errors are not specific to executive attention and instead likely reflect difficulties in overall sustained attention. The ERP results are consistent with neural activity related to deficits in inhibitory control (N2) and error monitoring (error‐related negativity). Questions emerge regarding the similarity of attention regulatory difficulties in PIs to those experienced by non‐PI children with ADHD.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02602.x

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Previous work consistently finds differences in ERN amplitude between children and adolescents exposed to early institutional care and those who have never been institutionalized.

    “Previous work consistently finds differences in ERN amplitude between children and adolescents exposed to early institutional care and those who have never been institutionalized (Debnath et al., 2023; Loman et al., 2013; McDermott et al., 2013; TrollerRenfree et al., 2016).”

    From Foster care intervention protects cognitive control skills in young adults exposed to institutional rearing (2026) · cites this paper as Loman et al., 2013

    The Results (Flanker Event-Related Potentials; page not provided) report a smaller ERN amplitude in post-institutionalized children than in non-adopted children. But the Results (Go/No-go Event-Related Potentials; page not provided) report no group difference in ERN amplitude, so this paper does not support the claim that such differences are consistently found across tasks. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Effects of foster care on the ERN appear to be late-emerging, with no significant group differences between foster care and continued institutional care from middle childhood to age 12 years.

    “Effects of foster care on the ERN appear to be late-emerging, with no significant group differences between foster care and continued institutional care from middle childhood to age 12 years (Loman et al., 2013; McDermott et al., 2013; TrollerRenfree et al., 2016).”

    From Foster care intervention protects cognitive control skills in young adults exposed to institutional rearing (2026) · cites this paper as Loman et al., 2013

    The Results (Go/No-go Event-Related Potentials; page unavailable) report no ERN group differences in a sample with foster-care and post-institutionalized groups. But the Methods (Participants; page unavailable) describe a single assessment at a mean age of 10.9 years, with both groups adopted rather than a foster-care versus continued-institutional-care comparison. The paper does not establish an absence of differences through age 12 or that foster-care effects emerge later. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Children raised in institutions exhibit poor performance on tests of working memory, inhibition, planning, sustained attention, and cognitive flexibility.

    “Children raised in institutions exhibit poor performance on tests of working memory, inhibition, planning, sustained attention, and cognitive flexibility(98, 109, 121–127)”
  • Executive function performance is worse in children with more severe and longer lasting deprivation.

    “EF performance is worse in children with more severe and longer lasting deprivation.(98, 109, 124, 125)”

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Loman, M. M., Johnson, A. E., Westerlund, A., Pollak, S. D., Nelson, C. A., & Gunnar, M. R.
Affiliations
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Venue
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-08-24
Volume
54
Issue
1
Pages
37-45
ISSN
  • 0021-9630 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7610
OpenAlex
W2133066691
Cited by
132
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 1
FWCI
22.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH068857, R01MH068858, R01MH091363, R01MH061285)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P30HD003352, T32HD007151, P30HD018655)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Child Welfare and Adoption
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Keywords
early deprivation, executive attention, sustained attention, inhibitory control, error monitoring, error-related negativity, N2 component, go/no-go task, flanker task, internationally adopted children, foster care, middle childhood
MeSH terms
Adoption, Attention, Child, Child, Institutionalized, Evoked Potentials, Female, Foster Home Care, Humans, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychosocial Deprivation, United States, Child, Orphaned, Executive Function

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