Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (3)
Year of publication
- 2020 (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Journal article (2)
- Preprint (1)
Language
- English (3) (remove)
Keywords
- attention (3) (remove)
Institute
New innovative neuropsychological tests in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ADHD have been proposed as objective measures for diagnosis and therapy. The current study aims to investigate two different commercial continuous performance tests (CPT) in a head-to-head comparison regarding their comparability and their link with clinical parameters. The CPTs were evaluated in a clinical sample of 29 adult patients presenting in an ADHD outpatient clinic. Correlational analyses were performed between neuropsychological data, clinical rating scales, and a personality-based measure. Though inattention was found to positively correlate between the two tests (r = 0.49, p = 0.01), no association with clinical measures and inattention was found for both tests. While hyperactivity did not correlate between both tests, current ADHD symptoms were positively associated with Nesplora Aquarium's motor activity (r = 0.52 to 0.61, p < 0.05) and the Qb-Test's hyperactivity (r = 0.52 to 0.71, p < 0.05). Conclusively, the overall comparability of the tests was limited and correlation with clinical parameters was low. While our study shows some interesting correlation between clinical symptoms and sub-scales of these tests, usage in clinical practice is not recommended.
While impulsivity is a basic feature of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), no study explored the effect of different components of the Impulsiveness (Imp) and Venturesomeness (Vent) scale (IV7) on psychiatric comorbidities and an ADHD polygenic risk score (PRS). We used the IV7 self-report scale in an adult ADHD sample of 903 patients, 70% suffering from additional comorbid disorders, and in a subsample of 435 genotyped patients. Venturesomeness, unlike immediate Impulsivity, is not specific to ADHD. We consequently analyzed the influence of Imp and Vent also in the context of a PRS on psychiatric comorbidities of ADHD. Vent shows a distinctly different distribution of comorbidities, e.g., less anxiety and depression. PRS showed no effect on different ADHD comorbidities, but correlated with childhood hyperactivity. In a complementary analysis using principal component analysis with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition ADHD criteria, revised NEO Personality Inventory, Imp, Vent, and PRS, we identified three ADHD subtypes. These are an impulsive–neurotic type, an adventurous–hyperactive type with a stronger genetic component, and an anxious–inattentive type. Our study thus suggests the importance of adventurousness and the differential consideration of impulsivity in ADHD. The genetic risk is distributed differently between these subtypes, which underlines the importance of clinically motivated subtyping. Impulsivity subtyping might give insights into the organization of comorbid disorders in ADHD and different genetic background.
Sensory input as well as cognitive factors can drive the modulation of blinking. Our aim was to dissociate sensory driven bottom-up from cognitive top-down influences on blinking behavior and compare these influences between the auditory and the visual domain.
Using an oddball paradigm, we found a significant pre-stimulus decrease in blink probability for visual input compared to auditory input. Sensory input further led to an early post-stimulus blink increase in both modalities if a task demanded attention to the input. Only visual input caused a pronounced early increase without a task. In case of a target or the omission of a stimulus (as compared to standard input), an additional late increase in blink rate was found in the auditory and visual domain. This suggests that blink modulation must be based on the interpretation of the input, but does not need any sensory input at all to occur.
Our results show a complex modulation of blinking based on top-down factors such as prediction and attention in addition to sensory-based influences. The magnitude of the modulation is mainly influenced by general attentional demands, while the latency of this modulation allows to dissociate general from specific top-down influences that are independent of the sensory domain.