Background Attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with working memory (WM) deficits. However, WM is a multiprocess construct that can be impaired through several pathways, leaving the source of WM impairments in ADHD unresolved. In this study, we aim to replicate, in an independent sample, previously reported deficits in component processes of WM deficits in ADHD and expand to consider their implications for neurocognitive outcomes. Methods In 119 children (7–14 years old, 85 with ADHD), we used electroencephalography measures to quantify component processes during performance of a spatial working memory task. We quantified stimulus encoding using alpha range (8–12 Hz) power; vigilance by the P2 event‐related potential to cues; and WMmaintenance by occipital‐alpha and frontal‐theta (4–7 Hz) power. These measures were evaluated against metrics of executive function, ADHD symptoms, and academic achievement. Results Encoding alpha‐power decreases and cue P2 amplitude were attenuated in ADHD, whereas occipital‐alpha power during maintenance was significantly greater in ADHD, consistent with a compensatory response to weak encoding. Weak alpha modulation during encoding was associated with poorer reading comprehension and executive function, as well as enhanced ADHD symptoms. Previously reported effects in frontal‐theta power failed to replicate. Conclusions Stimulus encoding, a component process of WM coupled to alpha modulation, is impaired in ADHD, and, unlike WM maintenance or vigilance processes, has implications outside of the laboratory via a relationship with executive function, and, to a weaker extent, reading comprehension.

No abstract

No abstract

Working memory (WM) has been defined as the active maintenance and flexible updating of goal-relevant information in a form that has limited capacity and resists interference. Complex measures of WM recruit multiple subprocesses, making it difficult to isolate specific contributions of putatively independent subsystems. The present study was designed to determine whether neurophysiological indicators of proposed subprocesses of WM predict WM performance. We recruited 200 individuals defined by care-seeking status and measured neural responses using electroencephalography (EEG), while participants performed four WM tasks. We extracted spectral and time-domain EEG features from each task to quantify each of the hypothesized WM subprocesses: maintenance (storage of content), goal maintenance, and updating. We then used EEG measures of each subprocess as predictors of task performance to evaluate their contribution to WM. Significant predictors of WM capacity included contralateral delay activity and frontal theta, features typically associated with maintenance (storage of content) processes. In contrast, significant predictors of reaction time and its variability included contingent negative variation and the P3b, features typically associated with goal maintenance and updating. Broadly, these results suggest two principal dimensions that contribute to WM performance, tonic processes during maintenance contributing to capacity, and phasic processes during stimulus processing that contribute to response speed and variability. The analyses additionally highlight that reliability of features across tasks was greater (and comparable to that of WM performance) for features associated with stimulus processing (P3b and alpha), than with maintenance (gamma, theta and cross-frequency coupling).

No abstract