Browsing by Author "Fillmore, Mark T."

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Does Response Variability Predict Distractibility among Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder?
    (American Psychological Association, 2011) Adams, Zachary W.; Roberts, Walter M.; Milich, Richard; Fillmore, Mark T.; Psychiatry, School of Medicine
    Increased intra-individual variability in response time (RTSD) has been observed reliably in ADHD and is often used as a measure of inattention. RTSD is assumed to reflect attentional lapses and distractibility, though evidence for the validity of this connection is lacking. We assessed whether RTSD is an indicator of inattention by comparing RTSD on the stop-signal task (SST) to performance on the Delayed Oculomotor Response (DOR) Task, a measure of distractibility. Participants included 30 adults with ADHD and 28 controls. Participants completed the SST and the DOR task, which measured subjects’ ability to maintain attention and avoid distraction by inhibiting reflexive saccades toward distractors. On the SST, the ADHD group was slower to inhibit than controls, indicating poorer inhibitory control in ADHD. The ADHD group also displayed slower RTs, greater RTSD, and more omission errors. On the DOR task, the ADHD group displayed more premature saccades (i.e., greater distractibility) than controls. Greater variability in RT was associated with increased distraction on the DOR task but only in ADHD participants. Results suggest that RTSD is linked to distractibility among adults with ADHD and support the use of RTSD as a valid measure of inattention in ADHD.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Examining Manual and Visual Response Inhibition among ADHD Subtypes
    (Springer, 2010) Adams, Zachary W.; Fillmore, Mark T.; Psychiatry, School of Medicine
    This study compared inhibitory functioning among ADHD subtype groups on manual and visual versions of the stop task. Seventy-six children, identified as ADHD/I (n=17), ADHD/C (n=43), and comparison (n=20) completed both tasks. Results indicated that both ADHD groups were slower to inhibit responses than the comparison group on both tasks. Comparison children were faster to inhibit than activate responses on both tasks. Children in the ADHD groups also demonstrated this robust pattern on the manual task. However, on the visual task, the ADHD groups evidenced slowed inhibition comparable to the time required to activate responding. This implies that the visual task is more sensitive than the manual task to inhibitory deficits associated with ADHD. The ADHD/I and the ADHD/C groups did not differ on most measures, suggesting that neither stop task is effective in differentiating the subtypes. These findings extend work highlighting the role of disinhibition in ADHD, and contrast recent work suggesting divergence between ADHD subtypes.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Inhibitory Functioning across ADHD Subtypes: Recent Findings, Clinical Implications and Future Directions
    (Wiley, 2008) Adams, Zachary W.; Derefinko, Karen J.; Milich, Richard; Fillmore, Mark T.; Psychiatry, School of Medicine
    Although growing consensus supports the role of deficient behavioral inhibition as a central feature of the combined subtype of ADHD (ADHD/C; Barkley, 2007; Nigg, 2001), little research has focused on how this finding generalizes to the primarily inattentive subtype (ADHD/I). This question holds particular relevance in light of recent work suggesting that ADHD/I might be better characterized as a disorder separate from ADHD/C (Diamond, 2005; Milich et al., 2001). The current paper describes major findings in the area of inhibitory performance in ADHD and highlights recent research suggesting important areas of divergence between the subtypes. In particular, preliminary findings point to potential differences between the subtypes with respect to how children process important contextual information from the environment, such as preparatory cues that precede responses and rewarding or punishing feedback following behavior. These suggestive findings are discussed in the context of treatment implications, which could involve differential intervention approaches for each subtype targeted to the specific deficit profiles that characterize each group of children. Future research avenues aimed toward building a sound theoretical model of ADHD/I and a better understanding of its relation to ADHD/C are also presented. Specifically, investigators are encouraged to continue studying the complex interplay between inhibitory and attentional processes, as this area seems particularly promising in its ability to improve our understanding of the potentially distinct pathologies underlying the ADHD subtypes.