4.7 Review

Earlier versus later cognitive event-related potentials (ERPs) in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): A meta-analysis

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS
卷 112, 期 -, 页码 117-134

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.01.019

关键词

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD); Event-related potentials (ERPs); Electroencephalography (EEG); Meta-analysis; Cognitive modulation

资金

  1. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research [FKZ 01EE1408E]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The current meta-analysis summarizes relevant literature on earlier (P100, N100, P200, N200, ERN/Ne) versus later (P300, Pe, CNV) cognitive Event-Related Potential (ERP) differences between children, adolescents, and adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and without ADHD (non-ADHD). Furthermore, the heterogeneity in previous research is addressed by analyzing potentially relevant demographic and methodological moderators (age group, IQ, medication, comorbidity, task, cognitive function, modality, inter-stimulus-interval, number of electrodes). Via database search 52 relevant articles were identified including n = 1576 ADHD and n = 1794 non-ADHD. Using multilevel-models, pooled effect sizes were calculated. For earlier components, individuals with ADHD showed shorter Go-P100-latencies than non-ADHD. For later ERPs, individuals with ADHD showed smaller Cue-P300-amplitudes, longer Go-P300-latencies, smaller NoGo-P300-amplitudes, longer NoGo-P300-latencies, smaller CNV-amplitudes, and smaller Pe-amplitudes. The substantial heterogeneity identified for most of the ERP components could be explained by the demographic and methodological moderators of interest. This meta-analysis identified relevant moderate group differences (-0.32 < d < -0.57), mainly regarding later cognitive ERPs. Nevertheless, results are characterized by substantial heterogeneity and the moderate effect sizes (d < 0.6) limit the use for clinical application.

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

4.7
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