4.6 Article

Cognitive and neurophysiological markers of ADHD persistence and remission

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY
卷 208, 期 6, 页码 548-+

出版社

ROYAL COLLEGE OF PSYCHIATRISTS
DOI: 10.1192/bjp.bp.114.145185

关键词

-

资金

  1. Action Medical Research
  2. Peter Sowerby Charitable Foundation [GN1777]
  3. UK Medical Research Council grant [G0300189]
  4. NIMH grant [R01MH062873]
  5. MRC [G0300189, MR/N013182/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Action Medical Research [1777] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. Medical Research Council [G0300189, MR/N013182/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) persists in around two-thirds of individuals in adolescence and early adulthood. Aims To examine the cognitive and neurophysiological processes underlying the persistence or remission of ADHD. Method Follow-up data were obtained from 110 young people with childhood ADHD and 169 controls on cognitive, electroencephalogram frequency, event-related potential (ERP) and actigraph movement measures after 6 years. Results ADHD persisters differed from remitters on preparationvigilance measures (contingent negative variation, delta activity, reaction time variability and omission errors), IQ and actigraph count, but not on executive control measures of inhibition or working memory (nogo-P3 amplitudes, commission errors and digit span backwards). Conclusions Preparation-vigilance measures were markers of remission, improving concurrently with ADHD symptoms, whereas executive control measures were not sensitive to ADHD persistence/remission. For IQ, the present and previous results combined suggest a role in moderating ADHD outcome. These findings fit with previously identified aetiological separation of the cognitive impairments in ADHD. The strongest candidates for the development of nonpharmacological interventions involving cognitive training and neurofeedback are the preparation-vigilance processes that were markers of ADHD remission.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据