Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T11:37:39.240Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ADHD patients fail to maintain task goals in face of subliminally and consciously induced cognitive conflicts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2017

K. Gohil ,
A. Bluschke ,
V. Roessner ,
A.-K. Stock  and
C. Beste
K. Gohil
Affiliation:
Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Cognitive Neurophysiology, Faculty of Medicine of the TU, Dresden, Germany
A. Bluschke
Affiliation:
Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Cognitive Neurophysiology, Faculty of Medicine of the TU, Dresden, Germany
V. Roessner
Affiliation:
Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Cognitive Neurophysiology, Faculty of Medicine of the TU, Dresden, Germany
A.-K. Stock
Affiliation:
Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Cognitive Neurophysiology, Faculty of Medicine of the TU, Dresden, Germany
C. Beste*
Affiliation:
Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Cognitive Neurophysiology, Faculty of Medicine of the TU, Dresden, Germany Experimental Neurobiology, National Institute of Mental Health, Klecany, Czech Republic
*
*Address for correspondence: Dr C. Beste, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Cognitive Neurophysiology, Faculty of Medicine of the TU, Schubertstrasse 42, D-01309 Dresden, Germany. (Email: christian.beste@uniklinikum-dresden.de)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) patients have been reported to display deficits in action control processes. While it is known that subliminally and consciously induced conflicts interact and conjointly modulate action control in healthy subjects, this has never been investigated for ADHD.

Method

We investigated the (potential) interaction of subliminally and consciously triggered response conflicts in children with ADHD and matched healthy controls using neuropsychological methods (event-related potentials; ERPs) to identify the involved cognitive sub-processes.

Results

Unlike healthy controls, ADHD patients showed no interaction of subliminally and consciously triggered response conflicts. Instead, they only showed additive effects as their behavioural performance (accuracy) was equally impaired by each conflict and they showed no signs of task-goal shielding even in cases of low conflict load. Of note, this difference between ADHD and controls was not rooted in early bottom-up attentional stimulus processing as reflected by the P1 and N1 ERPs. Instead, ADHD showed either no or reversed modulations of conflict-related processes and response selection as reflected by the N2 and P3 ERPs.

Conclusion

There are fundamental differences in the architecture of cognitive control which might be of use for future diagnostic procedures. Unlike healthy controls, ADHD patients do not seem to be endowed with a threshold which allows them to maintain high behavioural performance in the face of low conflict load. ADHD patients seem to lack sufficient top-down attentional resources to maintain correct response selection in the face of conflicts by shielding the response selection process from response tendencies evoked by any kind of distractor.

Keywords

ADHDcognitive controlconsciousEEGsubliminal
Type
Original Articles
Information
Psychological Medicine , Volume 47 , Issue 10 , July 2017 , pp. 1771 - 1783
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahmadi, N, Mohammadi, MR, Araghi, SM, Zarafshan, H (2014). Neurocognitive Profile of Children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorders (ADHD): a comparison between subtypes. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry 9, 197–202.Google Scholar
Albrecht, B, Brandeis, D, Uebel, H, Heinrich, H, Mueller, UC, Hasselhorn, M, Steinhausen, H-C, Rothenberger, A, Banaschewski, T (2008). Action monitoring in boys with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, their nonaffected siblings, and normal control subjects: evidence for an endophenotype. Biological Psychiatry 64, 615–625.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, VA, Anderson, P, Northam, E, Jacobs, R, Mikiewicz, O (2002). Relationships between cognitive and behavioral measures of executive function in children with brain disease. Child Neuropsychology 8, 231–240.Google Scholar
Arnsten, AFT, Rubia, K (2012). Neurobiological circuits regulating attention, cognitive control, motivation, and emotion: disruptions in neurodevelopmental psychiatric disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 51, 356–367.Google Scholar
Berger, A, Posner, M (2000). Pathologies of brain attentional networks. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 24, 3–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beste, C, Baune, BT, Falkenstein, M, Konrad, C (2010 a). Variations in the TNF-α gene (TNF-α -308G→A) affect attention and action selection mechanisms in a dissociated fashion. Journal of Neurophysiology 104, 2523–2531.Google Scholar
Beste, C, Willemssen, R, Saft, C, Falkenstein, M (2010 b). Response inhibition subprocesses and dopaminergic pathways: basal ganglia disease effects. Neuropsychologia 48, 366–373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bluschke, A, Broschwitz, F, Kohl, S, Roessner, V, Beste, C (2016 a). The neuronal mechanisms underlying improvement of impulsivity in ADHD by theta/beta neurofeedback. Scientific Reports 6, 31178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bluschke, A, Chmielewski, WX, Roessner, V, Beste, C (2016 b). Intact Context-dependent modulation of conflict monitoring in childhood ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders. pii: 1087054716643388.Google Scholar
Bluschke, A, Roessner, V, Beste, C (2016 c). Specific cognitive-neurophysiological processes predict impulsivity in the childhood attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder combined subtype. Psychological Medicine 46, 1277–1287.Google Scholar
Botvinick, MM, Cohen, JD, Carter, CS (2004). Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: an update. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8, 539–546.Google Scholar
Boy, F, Husain, M, Sumner, P (2010). Unconscious inhibition separates two forms of cognitive control. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 107, 11134–11139.Google Scholar
Checa, P, Castellanos, MC, Abundis-Gutiérrez, A, Rosario Rueda, M (2014). Development of neural mechanisms of conflict and error processing during childhood: implications for self-regulation. Frontiers in Psychology 5, 326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chmielewski, WX, Mückschel, M, Dippel, G, Beste, C (2016). Concurrent information affects response inhibition processes via the modulation of theta oscillations in cognitive control networks. Brain Structure & Function 221, 3949–3961.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christiansen, H, Oades, RD (2010). Negative priming within a stroop task in children and adolescents with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, their siblings, and independent controls. Journal of Attention Disorders 13, 497–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cornoldi, C, Marzocchi, GM, Belotti, M, Caroli, MG, Meo, T, Braga, C (2002). Working memory interference control deficit in children referred by teachers for ADHD symptoms. Child Neuropsychology (Neuropsychology, Development and Cognition: Section C) 7, 230–240.Google Scholar
Crone, EA, Jennings, JR, van der Molen, MW (2003). Sensitivity to interference and response contingencies in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines 44, 214–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cutmore, TRH, Halford, GS, Wang, Y, Ramm, BJ, Spokes, T, Shum, DHK (2015). Neural correlates of deductive reasoning: an ERP study with the Wason Selection Task. International Journal of Psychophysiology 98, 381–388.Google Scholar
Eimer, M, Schlaghecken, F (2003). Response facilitation and inhibition in subliminal priming. Biological Psychology 64, 7–26.Google Scholar
Folstein, JR, Van Petten, C (2008). Influence of cognitive control and mismatch on the N2 component of the ERP: a review. Psychophysiology 45, 152–170.Google Scholar
Forster, S, Robertson, DJ, Jennings, A, Asherson, P, Lavie, N (2014). Plugging the attention deficit: perceptual load counters increased distraction in ADHD. American Psychological Association Neuropsychology 28, 91–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gajewski, PD, Falkenstein, M (2013). Effects of task complexity on ERP components in Go/Nogo tasks. International Journal of Psychophysiology 87, 273–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giedd, JN, Raznahan, A, Lenroot, RK (2013). Adolescent frontal lobes: under construction. In Principles of Frontal Lobe Function, 2nd edn. (ed. Stuss, D. T. and Knight, R. T.), pp. 135–144. Oxford University Press: New York.Google Scholar
Gogtay, N, Giedd, JN, Lusk, L, Hayashi, KM, Greenstein, D, Vaituzis, AC, Nugent, TF, Herman, DH, Clasen, LS, Toga, AW, Rapoport, JL, Thompson, PM (2004). Dynamic mapping of human cortical development during childhood through early adulthood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 101, 8174–8179.Google Scholar
Gohil, K, Stock, A-K, Beste, C (2015). The importance of sensory integration processes for action cascading. Nature Publishing Group Scientific Reports 5, 9485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Groom, MJ, Cragg, L (2015). Differential modulation of the N2 and P3 event-related potentials by response conflict and inhibition. Brain and Cognition 97, 1–9.Google Scholar
Herrmann, CS, Knight, RT (2001). Mechanisms of human attention: event-related potentials and oscillations. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 25, 465–476.Google Scholar
Kiesel, A, Berner, MP, Kunde, W (2008). Negative congruency effects: a test of the inhibition account. Consciousness and Cognition 17, 1–21.Google Scholar
King, JA, Colla, M, Brass, M, Heuser, I, von Cramon, D (2007). Inefficient cognitive control in adult ADHD: evidence from trial-by-trial Stroop test and cued task switching performance. BioMed Central Behavioral and Brain Functions 3, 42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klimesch, W (2011). Evoked alpha and early access to the knowledge system: the P1 inhibition timing hypothesis. Brain Research 1408, 52–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, MJ, Clayson, PE, Clawson, A (2014). Making sense of all the conflict: a theoretical review and critique of conflict-related ERPs. International Journal of Psychophysiology 93, 283–297.Google Scholar
Larson, MJ, Clayson, PE, Keith, CM, Hunt, IJ, Hedges, DW, Nielsen, BL, Call, VRA (2016). Cognitive control adjustments in healthy older and younger adults: conflict adaptation, the error-related negativity (ERN), and evidence of generalized decline with age. Biological Psychology 115, 50–63.Google Scholar
Lehto, JE, Juujärvi, P, Kooistra, L, Pulkkinen, L (2003). Dimensions of executive functioning: evidence from children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 21, 59–80.Google Scholar
McBride, J, Boy, F, Husain, M, Sumner, P (2012). Automatic motor activation in the executive control of action. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 6, 82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLoughlin, G, Albrecht, B, Banaschewski, T, Rothenberger, A, Brandeis, D, Asherson, P, Kuntsi, J (2009). Performance monitoring is altered in adult ADHD: a familial event-related potential investigation. Neuropsychologia 47, 3134–3142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mückschel, M, Stock, A-K, Beste, C (2014). Psychophysiological mechanisms of interindividual differences in goal activation modes during action cascading. Cerebral Cortex 24, 2120–2129.Google Scholar
Nunez, PL, Pilgreen, KL (1991). The spline-Laplacian in clinical neurophysiology: a method to improve EEG spatial resolution. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology 8, 397–413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oosterlaan, J, Sergeant, JA (1998). Response inhibition and response re-engagement in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, disruptive, anxious and normal children. Behavioural Brain Research 94, 33–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perrin, F, Pernier, J, Bertrand, O, Echallier, JF (1989). Spherical splines for scalp potential and current density mapping. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 72, 184–187.Google Scholar
Polich, J (2007). Updating P300: an integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical Neurophysiology 118, 2128–2148.Google Scholar
Posner, MI, DiGirolamo, GJ (1998). Executive attention: conflict, target detection, and cognitive control. In The Attentive Brain (ed. Parasuraman, R.), pp. 401–423. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA.Google Scholar
Pritchard, VE, Neumann, E, Rucklidge, JJ (2007). Interference and negative priming effects in adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. American Journal of Psychology 120, 91–122.Google Scholar
Pritchard, VE, Neumann, E, Rucklidge, JJ (2008). Selective attention and inhibitory deficits in ADHD: does subtype or comorbidity modulate negative priming effects? Brain and Cognition 67, 324–339.Google Scholar
Randall, KD, Brocki, KC, Kerns, KA (2009). Cognitive control in children with ADHD-C: how efficient are they? Child Neuropsychology 15, 163–178.Google Scholar
Roberts, W, Milich, R, Fillmore, MT (2012). Constraints on information processing capacity in adults with ADHD. Neuropsychology 26, 695–703.Google Scholar
Saville, CWN, Feige, B, Kluckert, C, Bender, S, Biscaldi, M, Berger, A, Fleischhaker, C, Henighausen, K, Klein, C (2015). Increased reaction time variability in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder as a response-related phenomenon: evidence from single-trial event-related potentials. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines 56, 801–813.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schlaghecken, F, Birak, KS, Maylor, EA (2012). Correction to Schlaghecken, Birak, and Maylor (2011). Psychology and Aging 27, 541–542.Google Scholar
Schubö, A, Meinecke, C, Schröger, E (2001). Automaticity and attention: investigating automatic processing in texture segmentation with event-related brain potentials. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research 11, 341–361.Google Scholar
Senderecka, M, Grabowska, A, Szewczyk, J, Gerc, K, Chmylak, R (2012). Response inhibition of children with ADHD in the stop-signal task: an event-related potential study. International Journal of Psychophysiology 85, 93–105.Google Scholar
Spencer-Smith, M, Anderson, V (2009). Healthy and abnormal development of the prefrontal cortex. Developmental Neurorehabilitation 12, 279–297.Google Scholar
Stock, A-K, Arning, L, Epplen, JT, Beste, C (2014). DRD1 and DRD2 Genotypes modulate processing modes of goal activation processes during action cascading. Journal of Neuroscience 34, 5335–5341.Google Scholar
Stock, A-K, Friedrich, J, Beste, C (2016). Subliminally and consciously induced cognitive conflicts interact at several processing levels. Cortex 85, 75–89.Google Scholar
Stroux, D, Shushakova, A, Geburek-Höfer, AJ, Ohrmann, P, Rist, F, Pedersen, A (2016). Deficient interference control during working memory updating in adults with ADHD: an event-related potential study. Clinical Neurophysiology 127, 452–463.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Twomey, DM, Murphy, PR, Kelly, SP, O'Connell, RG (2015). The classic P300 encodes a build-to-threshold decision variable. European Journal of Neuroscience 42, 1636–1643.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ulrich, R, Schröter, H, Leuthold, H, Birngruber, T (2015). Automatic and controlled stimulus processing in conflict tasks: superimposed diffusion processes and delta functions. Cognitive Psychology 78, 148–174.Google Scholar
van Rooij, D, Hartman, CA, Mennes, M, Oosterlaan, J, Franke, B, Rommelse, N, Heslenfeld, D, Faraone, SV, Buitelaar, JK, Hoekstra, PJ (2015). Altered neural connectivity during response inhibition in adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and their unaffected siblings. NeuroImage. Clinical 7, 325–335.Google Scholar
van Veen, V, Carter, CS (2002). The anterior cingulate as a conflict monitor: fMRI and ERP studies. Physiology & Behavior 77, 477–482.Google Scholar
Verleger, R, Jaśkowski, P, Wascher, E (2005). Evidence for an integrative role of P3b in linking reaction to perception. Journal of Psychophysiology 19, 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willemssen, R, Müller, T, Schwarz, M, Falkenstein, M, Beste, C (2009). Response monitoring in de novo patients with Parkinson's disease. PloS ONE 4, e4898.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Gohil supplementary material

Gohil supplementary material

Download Gohil supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 322.5 KB