↓ Skip to main content

Neuronal Intra-Individual Variability Masks Response Selection Differences between ADHD Subtypes—A Need to Change Perspectives

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Neuronal Intra-Individual Variability Masks Response Selection Differences between ADHD Subtypes—A Need to Change Perspectives
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00329
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annet Bluschke, Witold X. Chmielewski, Moritz Mückschel, Veit Roessner, Christian Beste

Abstract

Due to the high intra-individual variability in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), there may be considerable bias in knowledge about altered neurophysiological processes underlying executive dysfunctions in patients with different ADHD subtypes. When aiming to establish dimensional cognitive-neurophysiological constructs representing symptoms of ADHD as suggested by the initiative for Research Domain Criteria, it is crucial to consider such processes independent of variability. We examined patients with the predominantly inattentive subtype (attention deficit disorder, ADD) and the combined subtype of ADHD (ADHD-C) in a flanker task measuring conflict control. Groups were matched for task performance. Besides using classic event-related potential (ERP) techniques and source localization, neurophysiological data was also analyzed using residue iteration decomposition (RIDE) to statistically account for intra-individual variability and S-LORETA to estimate the sources of the activations. The analysis of classic ERPs related to conflict monitoring revealed no differences between patients with ADD and ADHD-C. When individual variability was accounted for, clear differences became apparent in the RIDE C-cluster (analog to the P3 ERP-component). While patients with ADD distinguished between compatible and incompatible flanker trials early on, patients with ADHD-C seemed to employ more cognitive resources overall. These differences are reflected in inferior parietal areas. The study demonstrates differences in neuronal mechanisms related to response selection processes between ADD and ADHD-C which, according to source localization, arise from the inferior parietal cortex. Importantly, these differences could only be detected when accounting for intra-individual variability. The results imply that it is very likely that differences in neurophysiological processes between ADHD subtypes are underestimated and have not been recognized because intra-individual variability in neurophysiological data has not sufficiently been taken into account.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 20%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Professor 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 17 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Neuroscience 3 7%
Unspecified 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 18 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 July 2017.
All research outputs
#15,091,093
of 25,375,376 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,221
of 7,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,319
of 321,823 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#121
of 168 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,375,376 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,669 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,823 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 168 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.