2012
DOI: 10.1017/s003329171200270x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Familiality of neural preparation and response control in childhood attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Patients with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) exhibit difficulties in multiple attentional functions. Although high heritability rates suggest a strong genetic impact, aetiological pathways from genes and environmental factors to the ADHD phenotype are not well understood. Tracking the time course of deviant task processing using event-related electrophysiological brain activity should characterize the impact of familiality on the sequence of cognitive functions from preparation to … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

9
77
4
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 71 publications
(91 citation statements)
references
References 86 publications
9
77
4
1
Order By: Relevance
“…At the neural level (event-related potentials), deviant cue processing (reduced cue-P3) was the most prominent effect. The contingent negative variation (CNV) 2 reflecting inter alia cognitive preparation processes was not found to be smaller—probably due to the younger age of this sample compared to other studies (e.g., Albrecht et al, 2013). Differences between ADHD subtypes (combined type vs. predominantly inattentive type) could be observed.…”
Section: Introductioncontrasting
confidence: 53%
“…At the neural level (event-related potentials), deviant cue processing (reduced cue-P3) was the most prominent effect. The contingent negative variation (CNV) 2 reflecting inter alia cognitive preparation processes was not found to be smaller—probably due to the younger age of this sample compared to other studies (e.g., Albrecht et al, 2013). Differences between ADHD subtypes (combined type vs. predominantly inattentive type) could be observed.…”
Section: Introductioncontrasting
confidence: 53%
“…In many cases, risk factors are expected to be shared within families, suggesting that non-affected relatives show some (milder) impairments in these parameters. This was demonstrated with the CPT in studies during childhood and adolescence, where boys with ADHD as well as their non-affected siblings showed diminished brain activity related to preparation (Cue-P3 and -CNV) and response inhibition (no-go P3) compared to controls without a family history of ADHD [96]. Cue-P3 and No-Go-P3 remain familial-driven during adulthood [97], and a familial transmission of CPT commission errors between parents and children has also been demonstrated [98], suggesting that the CPT may uncover endophenotypes for ADHD.…”
Section: Geneticsmentioning
confidence: 82%
“…Cues elicit a slow wave contingent negative variation associated with preparation (consequently also present preceding cued No-Go and Go trials), which is not evoked by distractors (black). Further details are provided in [96] genome-wide association scans (GWAS) thus far have revealed no significant effects. This may suggest that ADHD is a genetically heterogeneous disorder on which frequent variants have a very small effect (potentially less than 0.5 % explained variance), while variants with larger effects are likely rare, and the situation may be complicated by genegene and gene-environment interactions and may be further moderated by epigenetic influences [25, 93••, 94].…”
Section: Geneticsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The high heritability and reliability of BIS-11 ratings (Congdon and Canli, 2008) and the no-go P3 (Albrecht et al, 2013; Brunner et al, 2013) argue that these measures are stable traits which are likely to precede and promote weight gain. But, we cannot rule out the opposite possibility in which weight gain is viewed as altering brain white matter (Haltia et al, 2007) and brain function (Bauer et al, 2010a) to effect higher levels of impulsivity and delayed no-go P3 latency.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%