Georgia Chronaki1, Fruzsina Soltesz2, Nicholas Benikos3, Edmund J S Sonuga-Barke4. 1. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience (DCN) Laboratory, School of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, UK; Developmental Brain-Behaviour Laboratory, Psychology, University of Southampton, UK; Division of Neuroscience & Experimental Psychology, University of Manchester, UK. 2. Developmental Brain-Behaviour Laboratory, Psychology, University of Southampton, UK. 3. Department of Cognitive Science Australian Hearing Hub 16 University Avenue Macquarie University, NSW, 2109, UK. 4. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Kings College London, UK; Department of Experimental Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent University, Belgium. Electronic address: edmund.sonuga-barke@kcl.ac.uk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Neural hypo-sensitivity to cues predicting positive reinforcement has been observed in ADHD using the Monetary Incentive Delay (MID) task. Here we report the first study using an electrophysiological analogue of this task to distinguish between (i) cue related anticipation of reinforcement and downstream effects on (ii) target engagement and (iii) performance in a clinical sample of adolescents with ADHD and controls. METHODS: Thirty-one controls and 32 adolescents with ADHD aged 10-16 years performed the electrophysiological (e)-MID task - in which preparatory cues signal whether a response to an upcoming target will be reinforced or not - under three conditions; positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement (response cost) and no consequence (neutral). We extracted values for both cue-related potentials known to be, both, associated with response preparation and modulated by reinforcement (Cue P3 and Cue CNV) and target-related potentials (target P3) and compared these between ADHD and controls. RESULTS: ADHD and controls did not differ on cue-related components on neutral trials. Against expectation, adolescents with ADHD displayed Cue P3 and Cue CNV reinforcement-related enhancement (versus neutral trials) compared to controls. ADHD individuals displayed smaller target P3 amplitudes and slower and more variable performance - but effects were not modulated by reinforcement contingencies. When age, IQ and conduct problems were controlled effects were marginally significant but the pattern of results did not change. DISCUSSION: ADHD was associated with hypersensitivity to positive (and marginally negative) reinforcement reflected on components often thought to be associated with response preparation - however these did not translate into improved attention to targets. In the case of ADHD, upregulated CNV may be a specific marker of hyper-arousal rather than an enhancement of anticipatory attention to upcoming targets. Future studies should examine the effects of age, IQ and conduct problems on reinforcement sensitivity in ADHD.
OBJECTIVE: Neural hypo-sensitivity to cues predicting positive reinforcement has been observed in ADHD using the Monetary Incentive Delay (MID) task. Here we report the first study using an electrophysiological analogue of this task to distinguish between (i) cue related anticipation of reinforcement and downstream effects on (ii) target engagement and (iii) performance in a clinical sample of adolescents with ADHD and controls. METHODS: Thirty-one controls and 32 adolescents with ADHD aged 10-16 years performed the electrophysiological (e)-MID task - in which preparatory cues signal whether a response to an upcoming target will be reinforced or not - under three conditions; positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement (response cost) and no consequence (neutral). We extracted values for both cue-related potentials known to be, both, associated with response preparation and modulated by reinforcement (Cue P3 and Cue CNV) and target-related potentials (target P3) and compared these between ADHD and controls. RESULTS:ADHD and controls did not differ on cue-related components on neutral trials. Against expectation, adolescents with ADHD displayed Cue P3 and Cue CNV reinforcement-related enhancement (versus neutral trials) compared to controls. ADHD individuals displayed smaller target P3 amplitudes and slower and more variable performance - but effects were not modulated by reinforcement contingencies. When age, IQ and conduct problems were controlled effects were marginally significant but the pattern of results did not change. DISCUSSION: ADHD was associated with hypersensitivity to positive (and marginally negative) reinforcement reflected on components often thought to be associated with response preparation - however these did not translate into improved attention to targets. In the case of ADHD, upregulated CNV may be a specific marker of hyper-arousal rather than an enhancement of anticipatory attention to upcoming targets. Future studies should examine the effects of age, IQ and conduct problems on reinforcement sensitivity in ADHD.
Authors: Jeroen Van Dessel; Edmund J S Sonuga-Barke; Matthijs Moerkerke; Saskia Van der Oord; Sarah Morsink; Jurgen Lemiere; Marina Danckaerts Journal: Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci Date: 2022-05-05 Impact factor: 4.235
Authors: György Hámori; Alexandra Rádosi; Bea Pászthy; János M Réthelyi; István Ulbert; Richárd Fiáth; Nóra Bunford Journal: Psychophysiology Date: 2022-03-17 Impact factor: 4.348