To what extent are task-switching deficits in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder independent of impaired inhibition?

Rauch, W.; Gold, Andreas; Schmitt, Kathrin

doi:10.1007/s12402-012-0083-5

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Identifying deficits in executive functioning constitutes a major challenge in clinical (neuro)psychology. It has been criticized, in this connection, that commonly used procedures are characterized by lack of theoretical justification and more specific assessment of separable components of executive functions are desirable [ 40 , 41 ] This seems to apply, particularly, to task switching performance as a diagnostic means, which has been found to be impaired in ADHD in some previous studies [ 8 , 11 , 15 ] but has been associated with comparably low effect sizes in meta-analyses [ 1 , 42 ] Alongside with the search for discriminative subtypes in ADHD [ 43 ], isolating more specific components of task-set shift, as attempted in the current study with regard to shifting the attentional set, seems a valuable method to improve this situation, and allows a more detailed description of which cognitive processes may be affected.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Daily life difficulties experienced by individuals suffering under ADHD symptoms have frequently been linked to deficits in executive functions, a class of mental processes assumed to organize cognitive activity in the service of goal-directed behavior (e.g., [ 1 – 8 ]). Although the concept of executive functions is not well defined, a core aspect thereof relates to the ability to adjust mental sets according to changing task requirements and context conditions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Selective impairment of attentional set shifting in adults with ADHD

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTask switch protocols are frequently used in the assessment of cognitive control, both in clinical and non-clinical populations. These protocols frequently confound task switch and attentional set shift. The current study investigated the ability of adult ADHD patients to shift attentional set in the context of switching tasks.MethodWe tested 38 adults with ADHD and 39 control adults with an extensive diagnostic battery and a task switch protocol without proactive interference. The experiment combined orthogonally task-switch vs. repetition, and attentional set shift vs. no shift. Each experimental stimulus had global and local features (Hierarchical/“Navon” stimuli), associated with corresponding attentional sets.ResultsADHD patients were slower than controls in task switch trials with a simultaneous shift of attention between global/local attentional sets. This also correlated significantly with diagnostic scales for ADHD symptoms. The patients had more variable reaction times, but when the attentional set was kept constant neither were they significantly slower nor showed higher task switch costs.ConclusionADHD is associated with a deficit in flexible deployment of attention to varying sources of stimulus information.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selective impairment of attentional set shifting in adults with ADHD

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…I doubt this conclusion and will suggest one challenging fact: the increased switch cost observed in attention deficits. This finding that has been replicated several times, including a related finding of “normalization” of switch costs under methylphenidate treatment ( Kramer, Cepeda, & Cepeda, 2001 ; Luna-Rodriguez, Wendt, Kerner auch Koerner, Gawrilow, & Jacobsen, 2018 ; Rauch, Gold, & Schmitt, 2012 ). Given how attention deficits are defined by the DSM ( American Psychiatric Association, 2013 ), it is difficult to attribute the increased switch cost and its “normalization” to features that are completely unrelated to cognitive control.…”

mentioning

confidence: 72%

Simple Control

Meiran

2020

Journal of Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Schmidt, Liefooghe and De Houwer (2020, henceforth, SLD) present an impressive theoretical work, which suggests a novel perspective on task-switching behavior and also shows its unique contribution relative to other models. In a nutshell, SLD show that switching-cost, believed to be an empirical marker of cognitive control, can be explained in terms of simple episodic binding. Models serve for model-based estimation of latent variables (e.g., Signal Detection Theory, McMillan, 2004, enabling the estimation of sensitivity and bias) and as proofs of concept (e.g., SLD's model, showing that episodic binding can explain switching cost), thereby clarifying the necessary assumptions in a scientific explanation. I address these two aspects in turn. Estimation of latent variables is widespread in cognitive psychology, with subtraction (also employed to compute switch cost) being probably the most widely used model. As usual, the estimate (e.g., switch cost) is valid as long as the underlying model is approximately valid. To appreciate this point, consider a hypothetical model assuming that task-switch trials entail reconfiguration, a switch-unique proactive processing stage that precedes response selection. Under this model, switch-cost = RT switch-RT non-switch provides an estimate for the duration of the (latent) reconfiguration processing stage. We however already know this model to be inaccurate because (a) residual switch cost, i.e. switch cost observed after ample advance task-preparation, is often observed, suggesting the involvement of additional processes beyond reconfiguration; and (b), the slope describing the reduction in switch cost as a function of task preparation time is far shallower than-1 (see Pashler, 1994). This finding suggests that reconfiguration, at minimum, is very slow and inefficient when performed ahead of the imperative stimulus, a fact that seems to argue against the proactivity hypothesis in general. SLD provide an alternative account of switch costs but seem to also suggest that switch costs do not represent cognitive control but represent what they describe as simpler memory mechanisms. I doubt this conclusion and will suggest one challenging fact: the increased switch cost observed in attention deficits. This finding that has been replicated several times, including a related finding of "normalization" of switch costs under methylphenidate treatment (

show abstract

“…Using the same task, Cepeda et al (2000) and Kramer et al (2001) reported larger switch costs in those with ADHD compared to controls while Oades and Christiansen (2008) failed to find a significant difference in switch costs. Other studies reported significantly larger switch costs for ADHD participants (King, Colla, Brass, Heuser, & von Cramon, 2007) while others did not (Rauch, Gold, & Schmitt, 2012). For example, Wu et al (2006) investigated the switching performance for those with and without ADHD under WM load.…”

Section: Task Switching and Adhdmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inattention and task switching performance: the role of predictability, working memory load and goal neglect

Arabacı

Parris

2019

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inattention is a symptom of many clinical disorders including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and is thought to be primarily related to limitations in working memory. In two studies, we investigated the implications of inattention for task switching performance. In study one, we measured task switching performance using predictable and unpredictable conditions in adults who self-rated inattention and other ADHD-related tendencies. Tasks required proactive control and reactive control, respectively, under both high and low working memory loads. Results revealed that inattentive, but not hyperactive/impulsive traits, predicted switch costs when switching was predictable and working memory load was high. None of the ADHD traits were related to unpredictable switch costs. Study two was designed to: (1) de-confound the role of proactive control and the need to keep track of task order in the predictable task switching paradigm; (2) investigate whether goal neglect, an impairment related to working memory, could explain the relationship between inattention and predictable task switching. Results revealed that neither predictability nor the need to keep track of the task order led to the association between switch costs and inattention, but instead it was the tendency for those high in inattention to neglect preparatory proactive control, especially when reactive control options were available.

show abstract

To what extent are task-switching deficits in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder independent of impaired inhibition?

Cited by 9 publications

References 44 publications

Selective impairment of attentional set shifting in adults with ADHD

Selective impairment of attentional set shifting in adults with ADHD

Simple Control

Inattention and task switching performance: the role of predictability, working memory load and goal neglect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About