Weak correlations between cerebellar tests

The ability to maintain rhythm is predictive of ADHD diagnosis and profile

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most prevalent neuropsychiatric disorder in the world. Currently, the diagnosis is based mainly on interviews, resulting in uncertainties in the clinical assessment. While some neuropsychological tests are used, their specificity and selectivity are low, and more reliable biomarkers are desirable. Previous research indicates that ADHD is associated with morphological changes in the cerebellum, which is essential for motor ability and timing. Here, we compared 29 children diagnosed with ADHD to 96 age-matched controls on prism adaptation, eyeblink conditioning, and timed motor performance in a finger tapping task. Prism adaptation and timing precision in the finger tapping task, but not performance on eyeblink conditioning, differed between the ADHD and control groups, as well as between children with and without Deficits in Attention, Motor control, and Perception (DAMP) - a more severe form of ADHD. The results suggest finger tapping can be used as a cheap, objective, and unbiased biomarker to complement current diagnostic procedures.

No evidence of conditioning of pupillary constriction despite overtraining

Eyeblink conditioning is the most popular paradigm for studying classical conditioning in humans. But the fact that eyelids are under voluntary control means it is ultimately impossible to ascertain whether a blink response is 'conditioned' or a timed 'voluntary' blink response. In contrast, the pupillary response is an autonomic response, not under voluntary control. By conditioning the pupillary response, one might avoid potential volition-related confounds. Several attempts have been made to condition the pupillary constriction and dilation responses, with the earliest published attempts dating back to the beginning of the 20th century. While a few early studies reported successful conditioning of pupillary constriction, later studies have failed to replicate this. The apparatus for recording pupil size, the type of stimuli used and the interval between the stimuli has varied in previous attempts-which may explain the inconsistent results. Moreover, measuring the pupil size used to be cumbersome compared with today when an eyetracker can continuously measure pupil size non-invasively. Here we used an eyetracker to test whether it is possible to condition the autonomic pupillary constriction response by pairing a tone (CS) and a light (US) with a 1s CS-US interval. Unlike in previous studies, our subjects went through multiple training sessions to ensure that any potential lack of conditioning would not be due to too little training. A total of 10 participants went through 2-12 conditioning sessions, each lasting approximately 20 min. One training session consisted of 75 paired, tone + light, trials and 25 randomly interspersed CS alone trials. The eyetracker (Tobii Pro Nano), continuously measured participants' pupil size. To test statistically whether conditioning of the pupillary response occurred we compared the pupil size after the tone on the first session and the last session. The results showed a complete lack of evidence of conditioning. Though the pupil size varied slightly between participants, the size did not change as a result of the training-irrespective of the number of training sessions. The data replicate previous findings that pupillary constriction does not show conditioning. We conclude that it is not possible to condition pupillary constriction-at least not by pairing a tone and a light. One hypothesis is that when pupillary conditioning has been observed in previous studies, it has been mediated by conditioning of an emotional response.