ADHD in the Lab vs the Clinic
Contents
1.1 Executive dysfunction
1.2 Dysfunctional reward sensitivity
1.3 Intelligence and academic achievement
2 Laboratory experiments attempt to capture and quantify ADHD
2.1 Response variability
2.2 Processing speed
3 Effects of stimulant medications
3.1 Non-pharmacological interventions to improve cognition in ADHD
4 Relevance of cognition-related endpoints in clinical syndrome of ADHD
1 Neuropsychological Theories of ADHD
No single neuropsychological theory can explain all attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) features, neuropsychological impairments may be heterogeneous, which probably corresponds to causal heterogeneity [15, 30]. There is considerable clinical and neuropsychological heterogeneity among individuals who meet the criteria for ADHD [4]. Rather than attempting to identify a single neurpsychological weakness that is necessary and sufficient to cause ADHD, more recent theoretical models explicitly hypothesize that complex disorders are heterogeneous conditions that arise from the combined effects of weaknesses in multiple cognitive domains [16, 17, 30].
1.1 Executive dysfunction
A prominent neuropsychological theory of ADHD suggests that ADHD symptoms arise from a primary deficit in executive functions: the cognitive processes that perform appropriate problem-solving in order to attain a future goal [18]. Every day, we continuously evaluate potential actions and select the options that are most appropriate for the current, specific set of circumstances. This task is extremely complex because some potential choices can be directed toward achieving a positive outcome in the future, whereas alternative actions may maximize initial gains but eliminate the chance for larger long-term benefits. Executive functions my be more accurately described as a collection of related but separable abilities: the ability to inhibit maladaptive behaviors (“response inhibition/inhibitory control”); hold and manipulate information in memory (“working memory”); shift back and forth between two simultaneous tasks (“set shifting”); and suppress attention to extraneous information in the environment to increase focus on a target (“interference control”) [4].
Candidates for core neuropsychological deficits in executive function that might cause both ADHD symptoms and the constellation of neuropsychological impairments that accompany ADHD include failure of inhibitory control [2], dysregulation of brain systems mediating reward and response cost [11, 29], and deficits in arousal, activation, and effortful control [23–25]. Deficits in arousal and effort lead to state-dependent cognitive deficits, and therefore, ADHD may cause problems in regulating cognitive functions in general. This pattern of neuropsychological deficit in ADHD patients has been interpreted as being caused by dysregulation of frontal–subcortical circuits [5]. Frontal–subcortical circuits control executive functions, including inhibition, working memory, set-shifting, interference control, planning, and sustained attention [7, 39]. One problem with these overarching theories is that executive dysfunction is common, but not universal in ADHD patients [22, 28].
1.2 Dysfunctional reward sensitivity
Motivation and reward may represent another core deficit of ADHD [31, 36]. Explanations of ADHD related to reward sensitivity suggest that ADHD is attributable to a dysfunctional response to reward and punishment contingencies. Johansen et al. [11] and Sonuga-Barke [28] propose theories that ADHD children have a steeper than normal delay-of-reinforcement gradient, and aversion to delay of reinforcement. Delay aversion is a special variant of the dysfunctional reward sensitivity model that suggests that children with ADHD have a motivational style that leads them to find delay extremely aversive [27, 29]. Tripp and Wickens [35] also proposed the dopamine (DA) transfer deficit theory and suggested that children with ADHD have diminished cellular responses of DA cells to cues that precede reinforcement.
A neural circuit that includes ventromedial prefrontal cortex, the amygdala, and other limbic structures plays an essential role in coordinating the interface between motivation and cognition during decision-making processes [3, 20]. Damage to this network often leads to difficulty learning from mistakes, delaying gratification, and monitoring subtle shifts in reward and punishment probabilities to maximize the short-and long-term benefits of a choice.
1.3 Intelligence and academic achievement
More global cognitive aspects like intelligence, academic achievement, and social cognition are of particular importance to the clinical impact of ADHD, and these broad domains are likely impacted by the individual cognitive processes described above [4]. Individual differences in intelligence and academic achievement may correlate better with neuropsychological deficits associated with ADHD rather than categorical placement [13], however, ADHD symptoms may directly cause an individual to perform poorly on standardized tests of intelligence or reading [2]. Also, while patients with ADHD suffer from a range of social and interpersonal problems, it is unclear whether these difficulties arise from true deficits in social cognition or can be better explained by the behavioral symptoms like lapses in attention and impulsivity [4].
2 Laboratory experiments attempt to capture and quantify ADHD
Spatial working memory tasks show the largest performance difference between children with ADHD and those without [16]. Key domains in which deficits are manifested across cases are vigilance/attention, cognitive control, response suppression, working memory, and motivation. These key domains (cognitive control and motivation) highlight principles of DA reinforcement (as discussed in the Dopamine in the Dentate Gyrus section) and its disruption in this disorder [32]. Historically, the core feature of ADHD has been characterized as one of an attention deficit, but increasing evidence suggests that a reward and motivation deficit may be of equal importance [6, 19, 29, 35–37].
2.1 Response variability
The reaction times of children, adolescents, and adults with ADHD are significantly more variable than the reaction times of individuals without ADHD across a wide range of cognitive tasks [8]. Response variability is one of the ubiquitous findings in ADHD research across a variety of speeded-reaction-time tasks, laboratories, and cultures [7]. Increased response variability seems to be due to a relatively small number of trials with extremely long response times rather than systematically greater response variability across all trials [9]. These slow trials may reflect attentional lapses due to chronic underarousal, or inconsistent regulation of arousal during lengthy tasks. These attentional lapses may be caused by problems in the functional connectivity between anterior cingulate and precuneal regions of the brain [6]. Another theory suggests that greater response variability could result from dysfunction in short-duration timing mechanisms mediated by cerebellar circuits [7, 33].
2.2 Processing speed
Although no neuropsychological theoretical models of ADHD explicitly propose slow cognitive processing speed as the primary neuropsychological weakness in ADHD, deficits in processing speed are among the most robust predictors of ADHD symptoms [4, 21, 39]. Slow processing speed has been reported in groups with ADHD on a range of measures that require both verbal and nonverbal responses [26], and is a consistant finding in studies of both children and adults with ADHD [40]. The neurophysiology of slow processing speed is not well understood, but generalized low cortical arousal provides one potential explanation [4].
3 Effects of stimulant medications
Other, non-stimulant medications used to treat ADHD1 test superior to placebo, but most head-to-head trials compared to stimulant medications (methylphenidate (MPH) and amphetamine (AMPH)) show greater efficacy for stimulant medications [4].
Across well-controlled studies of individuals with ADHD, stimulant-related cognitive enhancements were more prominent on tasks without an executive function component than on tasks with an executive function component [31]. Dose-response studies of stimulant medications suggest that the optimal dose varies across individuals and depends somewhat on the domain of function, with high doses tending to produce greater enhancement on some (e.g. attention, vigilance, memory, and working memory) but not others (e.g. planning, cognitive flexibility, inhibitory control, naming, and motor speed) [4, 31].
In terms of academic achievement, evidence suggests that stimulants improve acute academic performance of children with ADHD, but that long-term effects have not been supported. For example, the The Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD Cooperative Group demonstrated that treatment with stimulant medications over the 14-month trial resulted in significant improvement of achievement scores in math and reading on the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT) immediately post-treatment. However, these improvements were no longer significant at the 3-year follow up assessment, suggesting that any relative cognitive enhancement may not be sustained [10].
Extensive work examining the effects of stimulants on attentional and executive processes has not found consistent evidence that stimulants enhance or ameliorate these ADHD-related deficits. Although reaction times are significantly reduced, performance on tasks with increased attentional or executive demands is not consistently improved by stimulants [4]. Further, while short-term improvements in academic achievement scores have been demonstrated with stimulant treatment, stimulant medications do not completely normalize academic achievement in children with ADHD.
In contrast to the extensive work on the effects of stimulants on attention, executive function, and achievement, the potential influence of stimulants on other types of cognition implicated in ADHD (e.g. social cognition and reward sensitivity) is comparably unknown. In one study by Williams [41], several abnormalities during emotional processing could be observed prior to treatment, which were ameliorated with methylphenidate. In addition, medication significantly improved baseline deficits in the recognition of anger- and fear-related facial expressions. However, the performance of ADHD patients remained impaired relative to healthy controls. Thus, although methylphenidate normalized neural activity, it was associated with only minimal improvement on emotion recognition. This finding is in line with studies that suggest medication results in improvements of inattention and disruptive behavior in children with ADHD, whereas positive social behavior and peer status remain unchanged [38].
3.1 Non-pharmacological interventions to improve cognition in ADHD
Computer-based working memory training has demonstrated improvements on trained and untrained measures of working memory, and also showed improved response inhibition and reductions in parent-rated inattentive symptoms of ADHD that were durable at follow-up assessments [12]. This training protocol was shown to produce increases in brain activation and changes in the density of prefrontal and parietal dopamine D1 receptor binding potential, indicating neural plasticity that arises as a result of the training [14].
A number of studies have been published examining the effects of neurofeedback on a range of outcome measures in individuals with ADHD. These studies have, in general, produced large effects on parent and teacher-rated ADHD symptoms [34]. However, neurofeedback has shown more variable effects with respect to cognitive outcomes.
4 Relevance of cognition-related endpoints in clinical syndrome of ADHD
In one early review of the literature, Barkley [1] concluded that the ecological validity of laboratory tasks to measure clinically relevant feature of inattention, impulsivity, and overactivity was low to moderate. Other studies have shown that performance on laboratory tasks was not predictive of the clinical response in ADHD patients to different medications. To the extent that specific cognitive endpoints are strongly associated with the clinical features that define the disorder (e.g. link between inhibitory control and DSM-IV impulsivity symptoms), assessing the effects of interventions on these endpoints may be useful. However, as many studies have shown, the acute effects of a range of interventions on cognitive endpoints that are less strongly correlated with ADHD clinical features may be less meaningful from a clinical perspective.
Acronyms
- ADHD
- attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
- AMPH
- amphetamine
- DAT
- dopamine transporter
- DA
- dopamine
- MPH
- methylphenidate
- MTA
- The Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD Cooperative Group
- NE
- norepinephrine
- WIAT
- Wechsler Individual Achievement Test
References
[1] R. A. Barkley. The ecological validity of laboratory and analogue assessment methods of ADHD symptoms. J Abnorm Child Psychol, 19(2): 149–178, Apr 1991.
[2] R. A. Barkley. Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions: constructing a unifying theory of adhd. Psychol Bull, 121(1): 65–94, Jan 1997.
[3] A. Bechara. The role of emotion in decision-making: evidence from neurological patients with orbitofrontal damage. Brain Cogn, 55(1):30–40, Jun 2004. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2003.04.001.
[4] L. C. Bidwell, F. J. McClernon, and S. H. Kollins. Cognitive enhancers for the treatment of adhd. Pharmacol Biochem Behav, 99(2): 262–74, Aug 2011. doi: 10.1016/j.pbb.2011.05.002.
[5] J. Biederman and S. V. Faraone. Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. The Lancet, 366(9481):237 – 248, 2005. ISSN 0140-6736. doi: 10.1016/S0140-_6736(05)66915-_2. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673605669152.
[6] F. X. Castellanos. Toward the dimensionome: parsing reward-related processing in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Biol Psychiatry, 65 (1):5–6, Jan 2009. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.11.009.
[7] F. X. Castellanos, P. P. Lee, W. Sharp, N. O. Jeffries, D. K. Greenstein, L. S. Clasen, J. D. Blumenthal, R. S. James, C. L. Ebens, J. M. Walter, A. Zijdenbos, A. C. Evans, J. N. Giedd, and J. L. Rapoport. Developmental trajectories of brain volume abnormalities in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. JAMA, 288(14):1740–8, Oct 2002.
[8] F. X. Castellanos, E. J. S. Sonuga-Barke, A. Scheres, A. Di Martino, C. Hyde, and J. R. Walters. Varieties of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder-related intra-individual variability. Biol Psychiatry, 57(11): 1416–23, Jun 2005. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2004.12.005.
[9] A. S. Hervey, J. N. Epstein, J. F. Curry, S. Tonev, L. Eugene Arnold, C. Keith Conners, S. P. Hinshaw, J. M. Swanson, and L. Hechtman. Reaction time distribution analysis of neuropsychological performance in an adhd sample. Child Neuropsychol, 12(2):125–40, Apr 2006. doi: 10.1080/09297040500499081.
[10] P. S. Jensen, L. E. Arnold, J. M. Swanson, B. Vitiello, H. B. Abikoff, L. L. Greenhill, L. Hechtman, S. P. Hinshaw, W. E. Pelham, K. C. Wells, C. K. Conners, G. R. Elliott, J. N. Epstein, B. Hoza, J. S. March, B. S. G. Molina, J. H. Newcorn, J. B. Severe, T. Wigal, R. D. Gibbons, and K. Hur. 3-year follow-up of the nimh mta study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry, 46(8):989–1002, Aug 2007. doi: 10.1097/CHI. 0b013e3180686d48.
[11] E. B. Johansen, H. Aase, A. Meyer, and T. Sagvolden. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (adhd) behaviour explained by dysfunctioning reinforcement and extinction processes. Behav Brain Res, 130(1-2):37–45, Mar 2002.
[12] T. Klingberg, E. Fernell, P. J. Olesen, M. Johnson, P. Gustafsson, K. Dahlstrom, C. G. Gillberg, H. Forssberg, and H. Westerberg. Computerized training of working memory in children with ADHD–a randomized, controlled trial. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry, 44(2): 177–186, Feb 2005.
[13] B. B. Lahey, W. E. Pelham, M. A. Stein, J. Loney, C. Trapani, K. Nugent, H. Kipp, E. Schmidt, S. Lee, M. Cale, E. Gold, C. M. Hartung, E. Willcutt, and B. Baumann. Validity of dsm-iv attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder for younger children. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry, 37(7):695–702, Jul 1998. doi: 10.1097/00004583-_199807000-_00008.
[14] F. McNab, A. Varrone, L. Farde, A. Jucaite, P. Bystritsky, H. Forssberg, and T. Klingberg. Changes in cortical dopamine D1 receptor binding associated with cognitive training. Science, 323(5915):800–802, Feb 2009.
[15] J. T. Nigg, L. G. Blaskey, J. A. Stawicki, and J. Sachek. Evaluating the endophenotype model of adhd neuropsychological deficit: results for parents and siblings of children with adhd combined and inattentive subtypes. J Abnorm Psychol, 113(4):614–25, Nov 2004. doi: 10.1037/ 0021-_843X.113.4.614.
[16] J. T. Nigg, M. M. Wong, M. M. Martel, J. M. Jester, L. I. Puttler, J. M. Glass, K. M. Adams, H. E. Fitzgerald, and R. A. Zucker. Poor response inhibition as a predictor of problem drinking and illicit drug use in adolescents at risk for alcoholism and other substance use disorders. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry, 45(4):468–75, Apr 2006. doi: 10.1097/01.chi.0000199028.76452.a9.
[17] B. F. Pennington. From single to multiple deficit models of developmental disorders. Cognition, 101(2):385–413, Sep 2006. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.04.008.
[18] B. F. Pennington and S. Ozonoff. Executive functions and developmental psychopathology. J Child Psychol Psychiatry, 37(1):51–87, Jan 1996.
[19] D. Repantis, P. Schlattmann, O. Laisney, and I. Heuser. Modafinil and methylphenidate for neuroenhancement in healthy individuals: A systematic review. Pharmacol. Res., 62(3):187–206, Sep 2010.
[20] E. T. Rolls. Memory, attention, and decision-making: A unifying computational neuroscience approach. Oxford University, 2008.
[21] J. J. Rucklidge and R. Tannock. Neuropsychological profiles of adolescents with adhd: effects of reading difficulties and gender. J Child Psychol Psychiatry, 43(8):988–1003, Nov 2002.
[22] T. Sagvolden. Behavioral validation of the spontaneously hypertensive rat (shr) as an animal model of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ad/hd). Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 24(1):31–9, Jan 2000.
[23] J. Sergeant. The cognitive-energetic model: an empirical approach to attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 24(1):7–12, Jan 2000.
[24] J. Sergeant. Eunethydis – searching for valid aetiological candidates of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder or hyperkinetic disorder. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry, 13 Suppl 1:I43–9, 2004. doi: 10.1007/s00787-_004-_ 1005-_7.
[25] J. A. Sergeant, H. Geurts, S. Huijbregts, A. Scheres, and J. Oosterlaan. The top and the bottom of adhd: a neuropsychological perspective. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 27(7):583–92, Nov 2003.
[26] M. A. Shanahan, B. F. Pennington, B. E. Yerys, A. Scott, R. Boada, E. G. Willcutt, R. K. Olson, and J. C. DeFries. Processing speed deficits in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and reading disability. J Abnorm Child Psychol, 34(5):585–602, Oct 2006. doi: 10.1007/s10802-_006-_9037-_ 8.
[27] E. J. Sonuga-Barke, E. Taylor, S. Sembi, and J. Smith. Hyperactivity and delay aversion–i. the effect of delay on choice. J Child Psychol Psychiatry, 33(2):387–98, Feb 1992.
[28] E. J. S. Sonuga-Barke. Psychological heterogeneity in ad/hd–a dual pathway model of behaviour and cognition. Behav Brain Res, 130(1-2): 29–36, Mar 2002.
[29] E. J. S. Sonuga-Barke. The dual pathway model of ad/hd: an elaboration of neuro-developmental characteristics. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 27(7):593–604, Nov 2003.
[30] E. J. S. Sonuga-Barke. Causal models of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: from common simple deficits to multiple developmental pathways. Biol Psychiatry, 57(11):1231–8, Jun 2005. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2004.09.008.
[31] J. Swanson, R. D. Baler, and N. D. Volkow. Understanding the effects of stimulant medications on cognition in individuals with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a decade of progress. Neuropsychopharmacology, 36 (1):207–26, Jan 2011. doi: 10.1038/npp.2010.160.
[32] J. M. Swanson, M. Kinsbourne, J. Nigg, B. Lanphear, G. A. Stefanatos, N. Volkow, E. Taylor, B. J. Casey, F. X. Castellanos, and P. D. Wadhwa. Etiologic subtypes of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: brain imaging, molecular genetic and environmental factors and the dopamine hypothesis. Neuropsychol Rev, 17(1):39–59, Mar 2007. doi: 10.1007/s11065-_007-_9019-_9.
[33] M. E. Toplak and R. Tannock. Time perception: modality and duration effects in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). J Abnorm Child Psychol, 33(5):639–654, Oct 2005.
[34] M. E. Toplak, L. Connors, J. Shuster, B. Knezevic, and S. Parks. Review of cognitive, cognitive-behavioral, and neural-based interventions for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Clin Psychol Rev, 28(5):801–823, Jun 2008.
[35] G. Tripp and J. R. Wickens. Research review: dopamine transfer deficit: a neurobiological theory of altered reinforcement mechanisms in adhd. J Child Psychol Psychiatry, 49(7):691–704, Jul 2008. doi: 10.1111/ j.1469-_7610.2007.01851.x.
[36] N. D. Volkow, G.-J. Wang, J. S. Fowler, F. Telang, L. Maynard, J. Logan, S. J. Gatley, N. Pappas, C. Wong, P. Vaska, W. Zhu, and J. M. Swanson. Evidence that methylphenidate enhances the saliency of a mathematical task by increasing dopamine in the human brain. Am J Psychiatry, 161(7):1173–80, Jul 2004.
[37] N. D. Volkow, J. S. Fowler, G. J. Wang, R. Baler, and F. Telang. Imaging dopamine’s role in drug abuse and addiction. Neuropharmacology, 56 Suppl 1:3–8, 2009. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2008.05.022.
[38] C. K. Whalen and B. Henker. Social impact of stimulant treatment for hyperactive children. J Learn Disabil, 24(4):231–41, Apr 1991.
[39] E. G. Willcutt, A. E. Doyle, J. T. Nigg, S. V. Faraone, and B. F. Pennington. Validity of the executive function theory of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a meta-analytic review. Biol Psychiatry, 57(11):1336–46, Jun 2005. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.02.006.
[40] E. G. Willcutt, B. F. Pennington, L. Duncan, S. D. Smith, J. M. Keenan, S. Wadsworth, J. C. Defries, and R. K. Olson. Understanding the complex etiologies of developmental disorders: behavioral and molecular genetic approaches. J Dev Behav Pediatr, 31(7):533–44, Sep 2010. doi: 10.1097/DBP.0b013e3181ef42a1.
[41] J. H. G. Williams. Self-other relations in social development and autism: multiple roles for mirror neurons and other brain bases. Autism Res, 1(2):73–90, Apr 2008. doi: 10.1002/aur.15.