Cited by 31Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

Underarousal in Adult ADHD: How Are Peripheral and Cortical Arousal Related?

Mayer, Kerstin, Wyckoff, Sarah Nicole, Strehl, Ute·2016·Clinical EEG and Neuroscience

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

Crossref · 10.1177/1550059415577544

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?

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
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