Underarousal in Adult ADHD: How Are Peripheral and Cortical Arousal Related?
Abstract
In children and adults with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a general slowing of spontaneous electroencephalographic (EEG) brain activity and a decrease of event-related potential amplitudes such as the contingent negative variation (CNV) are observed. Additionally, some studies have reported decreased skin conductance level (SCL) in this clinical population leading to the hypothesis of a peripheral hypoarousal, which may be a target of biofeedback treatment in addition to or instead of neurofeedback. To our knowledge, the relationship between SCL and CNV has not been simultaneously investigated in one experiment. Using the theoretical background of the hypoarousal model, this article aims to gain more insight into the differences and correlations of cortical (CNV) and peripheral (SCL) arousal in adults with ADHD. A sample of 23 adults with ADHD and 22 healthy controls underwent an auditory Go-NoGo task with simultaneous 22-channel EEG and SCL recordings. Reaction time (RT) and reaction time variability (RTV) were also measured to assess task performance. Significantly decreased CNV amplitude and significantly higher RTV were observed in the ADHD group, reflecting cortical underarousal and problems with sustained attention. No significant correlation between peripheral underarousal and cortical underarousal was observed in the ADHD group or the control group. The observed cortical underarousal reflected in the decreased CNV supports the notion of a reduced CNV amplitude as a possible biomarker for ADHD. However, the connection between cortical and peripheral arousal is not as clear as is suggested in previous research investigating both separately. Implications of these results for new treatment options for ADHD such as biofeedback are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Mayer et al. (2016) found increased reaction-time variability (RTV) and reduced CNV amplitude in ADHD, but the groups did not differ on mean SCL or SCRs to the cue-go stimulus interval.
“Although increased reactiontimes variability (RTV) and reduced CNV amplitude were found in ADHD, the groups did not differ on mean SCL or SCRs to the cue-go stimulus interval.”
From Is autonomic nervous system function atypical in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)? A systematic review of the evidence (2020) · cites this paper as Mayer et al., 2016
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 53 · Cited by 31
- Authors
- Mayer, K., Wyckoff, S. N., & Strehl, U.
- Affiliations
- University of Tübingen (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Mayer, Kerstin
- Venue
- Clinical EEG and Neuroscience
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2015-03-23
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 171-179
- ISSN
- 1550-0594 (ISSN-L)
- 2169-5202
- OpenAlex
- W2010467737
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2
- FWCI
- 2.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Clinical EEG and Neuroscience (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
- adult ADHD, contingent negative variation, skin conductance level, cortical arousal, sustained attention, reaction time variability, EEG biomarkers, biofeedback, neurofeedback
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Arousal, Attention, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Brain, Electroencephalography, Female, Galvanic Skin Response, Humans, Male, Reaction Time, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results
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