Introducing intermittent stop trials does not change processing speed (drift rate) in children with or without ADHD¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i0 Drift rate was equivalent across the stop-signal and no-tone tasks (BF01 = 3.08; d = 0.12), with equivalent changes across groups. → Fosco 2019

Evidence¶

Fosco 2019¶

Fosco, W. D., Kofler, M. J., Alderson, R. M., Tarle, S. J., Raiker, J. S., & Sarver, D. E. (2019). Inhibitory Control and Information Processing in ADHD: Comparing the Dual Task and Performance Adjustment Hypotheses. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-018-0504-9

q3 · i0 · causal · r2

Tier 2 Bayesian mixed ANOVA in the same 144-child sample. The finding of "drift rate was equivalent across the stop-signal and no-tone tasks" (d = 0.12) contradicted the dual-task requirement hypothesis prediction of slower processing speed.

"drift rate was equivalent across the stop-signal and no-tone tasks (BF01 = 3.08; d = 0.12), and the ADHD/Non-ADHD groups showed equivalent changes in drift rate when inhibition demands were added (group x task interaction: BF01 = 4.38)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Children with and without ADHD show equivalent increases in response caution when stop trials are introduced — related
• Children adopt a more cautious response strategy (higher boundary separation) when intermittent stop trials are introduced — related
• Non-decision time (encoding/motor speed) is unchanged when inhibitory demands are introduced — related
• Equivalent performance-adjustment effects hold when clinical control and neurotypical children are analyzed separately — related
• Go-trial response times are slower during the stop-signal task than the no-tone task, with no diagnostic group difference — related
• Reward does not alter the speed or variability of response execution in either stop signal task — related
• Reactive inhibition speed and accuracy improve with age between 8 and 11 years, while proactive response slowing does not increase with age — related