2011
DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00027
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Word Recognition Memory in Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder as Reflected by Event-Related Potentials

Abstract: Objective: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is increasingly diagnosed in adults. In this study we address the question whether there are impairments in recognition memory. Methods: In the present study 13 adults diagnosed with ADHD according to DSM-IV and 13 healthy controls were examined with respect to event-related potentials (ERPs) in a visual continuous word recognition paradigm to gain information about recognition memory effects in these patients. Results: The amplitude of one attention-r… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 42 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Next, data from 33 tasks were excluded in favor of tasks that required greater mental manipulation of information (i.e., greater demand on CE processes). Remaining tasks ( n = 10) that could not be selected by the above criteria were selected randomly when task demands were equivalent and none of the a priori selection guidelines provided resolution (Barkley & Murphy, 2010; Gropper & Tannock, 2009; Ibáñez et al, 2011; Marx et al, 2010, 2011; Prox-Vagedes et al, 2011; Ross, Harris, Olincy, & Radant, 2000; Rucklidge, Harrison, & Johnstone, 2011; Schweitzer, Hanford, & Medoff, 2006; Torralva et al, 2011). Finally, two studies that reported multiple conditions of a task required special consideration.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Next, data from 33 tasks were excluded in favor of tasks that required greater mental manipulation of information (i.e., greater demand on CE processes). Remaining tasks ( n = 10) that could not be selected by the above criteria were selected randomly when task demands were equivalent and none of the a priori selection guidelines provided resolution (Barkley & Murphy, 2010; Gropper & Tannock, 2009; Ibáñez et al, 2011; Marx et al, 2010, 2011; Prox-Vagedes et al, 2011; Ross, Harris, Olincy, & Radant, 2000; Rucklidge, Harrison, & Johnstone, 2011; Schweitzer, Hanford, & Medoff, 2006; Torralva et al, 2011). Finally, two studies that reported multiple conditions of a task required special consideration.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%