Influence of stimulant medication and response speed on lateralization of movement-related potentials in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

Bereitschaftspotential and lateralized readiness potential in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: altered motor system activation and effects of methylphenidate

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been linked to abnormal functioning of cortical motor areas such as the supplementary motor area, the premotor cortex and primary motor cortex (MI). The Bereitschaftspotential (BP) and lateralized readiness potential (LRP) are movement-related potentials generated by cortical motor areas. We hypothesized that the BP and LRP would be altered in children with ADHD. A group of 17 children with ADHD (mean age: 11.5 ± 1.9 years) and a control group of 16 typically developing children (mean age: 12.2 ± 2.0 years) performed movements at self-chosen irregular intervals while a 64-channel DC-EEG was registered. BP and LRP were calculated from the EEG. The ADHD group had significantly lower and on average positive BP amplitudes at Cz. In agreement with age-dependent maturation effects the LRP had a positive polarity in both groups, but lower amplitudes were found in the ADHD group without medication. The control group showed a mid-central negativity and a positivity over motor areas contra-lateral to the side of movement, whereas no negativity over Cz and a more diffuse positivity was found in the ADHD group. LRP group differences diminished after MPH administration as indicated by an interaction between group and time of measurement/medication. The cortical motor system shows altered functioning during movement preparation and initiation in children affected by ADHD. Positive Bereitschaftspotential polarities may represent delayed cortical maturation. Group differences of LRP were pharmacologically modulated by the catecholaminergic agent MPH.

Attenuated Readiness Potential in the Absence of Executive Dysfunction in Adults With ADHD

OBJECTIVE

Patients with ADHD display a decreased contingent negative variation in Go/NoGo tasks. It is unclear whether the attenuation is due to deficits of executive function or to disorder of motor planning. The readiness potential (RP) recorded during self-initiated movements could cast light on this question.

METHOD

RP was recorded in 25 stably medicated adult ADHD patients and 21 healthy controls matched for age, education, and verbal IQ. Participants also completed neuropsychological tests of executive function.

RESULTS

Compared with healthy controls, ADHD patients showed significantly diminished RP peaks and also decreased negativity in preparation of the movement at frontal locations. There were no significant group differences with regard to tests of executive function.

CONCLUSION

In adults with ADHD, deficits of motor organization are also manifest in situations not involving external stimulus processing. The attenuated RP occurred in the absence of executive dysfunction. Results are consistent with partial independence between motor and executive dysfunction in ADHD.

ADHD & Pharmacotherapy: Past, Present and Future: A Review of the Changing Landscape of Drug Therapy for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most common neurobiological disorder in children, with a prevalence of ~6-7%^1,2 that has remained stable for decades². The social and economic burden associated with patients³, families, and broader systems (healthcare/educational) is substantial, with the annual economic impact of ADHD exceed $30 billion in the US alone⁴. Efficacy of pharmacotherapy in treating ADHD symptoms has generally been considerable with at least ¾ of individuals benefitting from pharmacotherapy, typically in the form of stimulants⁵. In this review, we begin by briefly reviewing the history of pharmacotherapy in relation to ADHD, before focusing (primarily) on the state-of-the-field on themes such as biophysiology, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacogenomics. We conclude with a summary of emerging clinical and research studies, particularly the potential role for precision therapy in matching ADHD patients and drug types.

Annual research review: Reaction time variability in ADHD and autism spectrum disorders: measurement and mechanisms of a proposed trans-diagnostic phenotype

BACKGROUND

Intraindividual variability in reaction time (RT) has received extensive discussion as an indicator of cognitive performance, a putative intermediate phenotype of many clinical disorders, and a possible trans-diagnostic phenotype that may elucidate shared risk factors for mechanisms of psychiatric illnesses.

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

Using the examples of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorders (ASD), we discuss RT variability. We first present a new meta-analysis of RT variability in ASD with and without comorbid ADHD. We then discuss potential mechanisms that may account for RT variability and statistical models that disentangle the cognitive processes affecting RTs. We then report a second meta-analysis comparing ADHD and non-ADHD children on diffusion model parameters. We consider how findings inform the search for neural correlates of RT variability.

FINDINGS

Results suggest that RT variability is increased in ASD only when children with comorbid ADHD are included in the sample. Furthermore, RT variability in ADHD is explained by moderate to large increases (d = 0.63-0.99) in the ex-Gaussian parameter τ and the diffusion parameter drift rate, as well as by smaller differences (d = 0.32) in the diffusion parameter of nondecision time. The former may suggest problems in state regulation or arousal and difficulty detecting signal from noise, whereas the latter may reflect contributions from deficits in motor organization or output. The neuroimaging literature converges with this multicomponent interpretation and also highlights the role of top-down control circuits.

CONCLUSION

We underscore the importance of considering the interactions between top-down control, state regulation (e.g., arousal), and motor preparation when interpreting RT variability and conclude that decomposition of the RT signal provides superior interpretive power and suggests mechanisms convergent with those implicated using other cognitive paradigms. We conclude with specific recommendations for the field for next steps in the study of RT variability in neurodevelopmental disorders.

Dopamine inactivation efficacy related to functional DAT1 and COMT variants influences motor response evaluation

BACKGROUND

Dopamine plays an important role in orienting, response anticipation and movement evaluation. Thus, we examined the influence of functional variants related to dopamine inactivation in the dopamine transporter (DAT1) and catechol-O-methyltransferase genes (COMT) on the time-course of motor processing in a contingent negative variation (CNV) task.

METHODS

64-channel EEG recordings were obtained from 195 healthy adolescents of a community-based sample during a continuous performance task (A-X version). Early and late CNV as well as motor postimperative negative variation were assessed. Adolescents were genotyped for the COMT Val(158)Met and two DAT1 polymorphisms (variable number tandem repeats in the 3'-untranslated region and in intron 8).

RESULTS

The results revealed a significant interaction between COMT and DAT1, indicating that COMT exerted stronger effects on lateralized motor post-processing (centro-parietal motor postimperative negative variation) in homozygous carriers of a DAT1 haplotype increasing DAT1 expression. Source analysis showed that the time interval 500-1000 ms after the motor response was specifically affected in contrast to preceding movement anticipation and programming stages, which were not altered.

CONCLUSIONS

Motor slow negative waves allow the genomic imaging of dopamine inactivation effects on cortical motor post-processing during response evaluation. This is the first report to point towards epistatic effects in the motor system during response evaluation, i.e. during the post-processing of an already executed movement rather than during movement programming.