Elsevier

Intelligence

Volume 69, July–August 2018, Pages 186-194
Intelligence

Using inspection time and ex-Gaussian parameters of reaction time to predict executive functions in children with ADHD

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2018.06.005Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Used Inspection Time and ex-Gaussian RT parameters in children with and without ADHD

  • Disambiguated diagnostic differences in encoding, decision-making, and motor speed

  • ADHD-related group differences were found for tau, but not for IT, mu, or sigma.

  • Tau partially mediated the relationship between ADHD symptomology and EF.

Abstract

Slower and more variable performance in speeded reaction time tasks is a prominent cognitive signature among children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and is often also negatively associated with executive functioning ability. In the current study, we utilize a visual inspection time task and an ex-Gaussian decomposition of the reaction time data from the same task to better understand which of several cognitive subprocesses (i.e., perceptual encoding, decision-making, or fine-motor output) may be responsible for these important relationships. Consistent with previous research, children with ADHD (n = 190; 68 girls) had longer/slower SD and tau than non-ADHD peers (n = 76; 42 girls), but there were no group differences in inspection time, mu, or sigma. Smaller mu, greater sigma, longer tau, and slower inspection time together predicted worse performance on a latent executive function factor, but only tau partially mediated the relationship between ADHD symptomology and EF. These results suggest that the speed of information accumulation during the decision-making process may be an important mechanism that explains ADHD-related deficits in executive control.

Introduction

Broadly characterized by difficulty with sustained attention, hyperactivity and impulsivity, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a serious risk factor for numerous negative outcomes such as frequent psychiatric comorbidity and poor academic performance (Biederman, 2005; Biederman et al., 2004; DuPaul, McGoey, Eckert, & VanBrakle, 2001; Fanti & Henrich, 2010). Though the etiology of the disorder largely remains unknown, weaker performance on tasks of executive functions (EF) and slower/more variable motor reaction time (RT) are commonly associated with the disorder (Adamo et al., 2014; Buzy, Medoff, & Schweitzer, 2009; Hervey et al., 2006; Jacobson et al., 2011; Karalunas & Huang-Pollock, 2013; Kofler et al., 2013). Current evidence suggests that these indices of cognition are not independent. RT improves with age, and this improvement is associated with improvements in working memory (WM), a key executive function (Bayliss, Jarrold, Baddeley, Gunn, & Leigh, 2005; Demetriou et al., 2014; Fry & Hale, 2000; Kail, Lervag, & Hulme, 2016; Tourva, Spanoudis, & Demetriou, 2016). There is also evidence that individual differences in RT predict individual differences in working memory capacity (Cowan et al., 2003; Karalunas & Huang-Pollock, 2013; Weigard & Huang-Pollock, 2016).

It is not clear why this should be. However, information processing during standard speeded choice response tasks is generally understood to entail several broad sub-processes or components including perceptual encoding, decision-making, and fine-motor output (Luce, 1986; Salthouse, 1996). And some (Luce, 1986; Myerson, Hale, Zheng, Jenkins, & Widaman, 2003; Rotello & Zeng, 2008; Smith & Ratcliff, 2004) have argued that these components may be inferred from the shape of the RT distribution that is produced during speeded task performance. By asking which portion(s) of the RT distribution uniquely predict(s) EF, it might be possible to identify which sub-process is most predictive of EF performance.

RT distributions are best represented by an ex-Gaussian distribution, which is formed from the integration of normal and exponential distributions, resulting in a distribution that does not have a lower tail, but does have a long upper tail (Dawson, 1988; Ratcliff & Murdock, 1976). Practically speaking, the ex-Gaussian shape appears because RTs have a lower time-limit of zero milliseconds, but no upper time-limit (Coyle, 2003). The parameters mu and sigma refer to the mean and standard deviation of the normal portion of the distribution; tau characterizes the mean of the exponentially shaped portion of the distribution (Lacouture & Cousineau, 2008).

Competing psychological constructs have been proposed for each of these components (see Matzke & Wagenmakers, 2009 for review). However, many have argued that informational encoding and motor preparation/execution are relatively automatic functions, and that the relative health or efficiency of those processes are best indexed by indices of central tendency (i.e., mu and sigma). In contrast, attentional or intentional processes are believed to be captured by the exponential tail of the distribution (i.e., tau) (Abney, McBride, & Petrella, 2013; Balota & Spieler, 1999; Gordon & Carson, 1990; Hockley, 1984; Luce, 1986; Madden et al., 1999; Moret-Tatay et al., 2016; Rotello & Zeng, 2008).

This general consensus has arisen in part because the slowest RTs are the most strongly correlated with higher order processes including intellectual ability and executive function, a phenomenon known as the “worst performance rule” (Larson & Alderton, 1990). Tau (but not mu or sigma) has been found to predict performance on WM and other EF tasks in both children and adults (Borella, de Ribaupierre, Cornoldi, & Chicherio, 2013; Karalunas & Huang-Pollock, 2013; Schmiedek, Oberauer, Wilhelm, Suss, & Wittmann, 2007; Unsworth, Redick, Lakey, & Young, 2010). And, even in simple perceptual decision tasks, compared to their same-aged peers, children with ADHD have larger tau, but similar mu and sigma (Borella et al., 2013; Epstein et al., 2011; Karalunas & Huang-Pollock, 2013; Leth-Steensen, Elbaz, & Douglas, 2000).

Our own more specific interpretation of tau is that it represents the speed at which information accumulates during the decisional sub-component that comprises a RT. Such an interpretation is heavily influenced by the diffusion model; a mathematical model of choice reaction time performance for which the parameters have an extensive and strong history of empirical validation (Ratcliff, 2002, Ratcliff, 2014; Voss, Rothermund, & Voss, 2004). Drift rate is a diffusion model parameter that specifically indexes the rate of information accumulation during a decisional process, and tau is substantively and negatively correlated with drift (Karalunas & Huang-Pollock, 2013), though the relationship is not 1:1 (Matzke & Wagenmakers, 2009).

What is clear is that the trials that form the exponential tail of the RT distribution (tau) represent some important function, which might help explain individual differences in higher order cognitive processes. That being said, roughly 30–50% of children with ADHD also experience fine motor coordination problems (Fliers et al., 2008; Kadesjö & Gillberg, 1998), which may very well influence their performance on both the speeded RT tasks and the EF tasks that commonly rely upon RT measurements. It remains a challenge to fully disambiguate encoding from motor preparation time (both are captured within mu/sigma when examining a standard motor-reaction time task, and even the diffusion model captures encoding and motor processing in a single parameter, Ter). It could be that the influence of poor motor planning is offset by adequate perceptual processing/encoding speed. Regardless, the degree to which each of these processes accounts for unique variance in the relationship between ADHD and EF deficits is not yet well understood.

It is, however, possible to isolate encoding from motor preparation by use of an “inspection time” task. During a visual inspection time task, participants are briefly shown two visual stimuli before a masking image is overlaid. Participants are then asked to make a simple forced-choice decision (e.g. which of the two lines was longer?). An adaptive staircase method (Findlay, 1978; Taylor & Creelman, 1967) is used to vary the amount of time stimuli are presented for each trial. The final output variable, inspection time (IT), refers to the shortest amount of time that a stimulus needs to be presented for an individual to achieve a pre-determined level of accuracy (e.g. 80%) (Irwin, 1984). In this way, IT represents the amount of time an individual needs to view a stimulus to perform at a specified level of accuracy, and so provides an index of perceptual encoding speed that is independent of motor response preparation (Deary & Stough, 1996).

Several studies have found negative associations between visual and auditory IT tasks and general intelligence (g) (Grudnik & Kranzler, 2001; Kranzler & Jensen, 1989) as well as with standard neuropsychological measures of executive function (Edmonds et al., 2008; Hutton, Wilding, & Hudson, 1997). Only a few studies have examined the association between IT and symptoms of ADHD, with inconsistent results. One study examining children with either Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) or ADHD found that children with ADHD did not differ from typically developing peers (Piek, Dyek, Francis, & Conwell, 2007), though another found a correlation between slower IT and a higher number of ADHD symptoms in their control group (Shank, Kaufman, Leffard, & Warschausky, 2010). Thus, there is some evidence that perceptual encoding speed may be slower among children with ADHD, and that slower perceptual encoding speed predicts executive functioning and other higher-order processes. However, what remains to be seen is the degree to which motor, encoding, and decision speed may separately or jointly explain EF deficits in children with ADHD.

In the current study, we utilize a visual inspection time task, and combine this with an ex-Gaussian decomposition of the RT data of the choice response times from the same task, in children with and without ADHD.

We hypothesize that compared to their same aged peers, children with ADHD will demonstrate slower perceptual encoding speed (indexed by IT), slower motor speed (indexed by mu/sigma), and longer decision-making times (indexed by tau). However, when all variables are in the model, we predict that neither motor nor encoding speed will meaningfully predict EF, and that the RT-EF association will be accounted for primarily by the speed of the decisional process. And finally, we predict that of those parameters, only tau will mediate the ADHD—EF relationship.

Section snippets

Participants

A total of 266 boys and girls between the ages of 8 and 12 years old, with and without ADHD, were community recruited from Centre, York, and Harrisburg counties of Pennsylvania to participate in a larger study on attention and learning at The Pennsylvania State University. Children were excluded based on parent report of neurological or sensorimotor disorders, pervasive developmental disorder that would preclude full participation, as well as use of non-stimulant psychoactive medications (e.g.,

Results

Table 1 provides descriptive statistics. Validating the diagnostic groups, children with ADHD had more inattentive, F (1,264) = 1727.05, p < .001, η 2 = 0.867, and hyperactive symptoms, F (1,264) = 266.30, p < .001, η 2 = 0.502, than typically developing controls. There were no group differences in age, F (1,264) = 1.63, p = .20, η 2 = 0.006, or FSIQ, F (1,264) = 0.029, p = .87, η 2 < 0.001. Children with ADHD had a smaller WM capacity (Symmetry Span: F (1,188) = 12.184, p = .001, η2 = 0.061;

Discussion

Slower mean reaction time (Barrouillet, Bernardin, & Camos, 2004; Bayliss et al., 2005; Kail, 1992) and greater intraindividual variability in reaction time (i.e. SDRT and tau) (Kofler et al., 2013; Mella, Fagot, Lecerf, & de Ribaupierre, 2015; Schmiedek et al., 2007), have long been found to be negatively associated with working memory capacity and other executive functions. However, reliance upon mean/SD of reaction time as a proxy for cognitive processing speed collapses across the several

Conclusion

Slower and more variable reaction time is frequently identified as a prominent cognitive signature in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). However, the nearly exclusive use of fine motor reaction time to index processing speed limits the ability to identify the source of these deficits. The use of an inspection time task in conjunction with an ex-Gaussian decomposition of the RT data allowed for a more accurate and comprehensive description of speeded performance in children with

Declarations of interest

None.

Funding

This work was supported in part by National Institute of Mental Health Grant R01 MH084947 to Cynthia Huang-Pollock. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Mental Health or the National Institutes of Health.

References (81)

  • M.J. Kofler et al.

    Reaction time variability in ADHD: A meta-analytic review of 319 studies

    Clinical Psychology Review

    (2013)
  • J.H. Kranzler et al.

    Inspection time and intelligence - a META-analysis

    Intelligence

    (1989)
  • G.E. Larson et al.

    Reaction time variability and intelligence: A “worst performance” analysis of individual differences

    Intelligence

    (1990)
  • M. Luciano et al.

    Perceptual speed does not cause intelligence, and intelligence does not cause perceptual speed

    Biological Psychology

    (2005)
  • M. Luciano et al.

    On the heritability of inspection time and its covariance with IQ: A twin study

    Intelligence

    (2001)
  • R. Ratcliff et al.

    A diffusion model explanation of the worst performance rule for reaction time and IQ

    Intelligence

    (2008)
  • D. Shaffer et al.

    NIMH diagnostic interview schedule for children version IV (NIMH DISC-IV)

    Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry

    (2000)
  • P.L. Smith et al.

    Psychology and neurobiology of simple decisions

    Trends in Neurosciences

    (2004)
  • A. Tourva et al.

    Cognitive correlates of developing intelligence: The contribution of working memory, processing speed and attention

    Intelligence

    (2016)
  • N. Unsworth et al.

    Lapses in sustained attention and their relation to executive control and fluid abilities: An individual differences investigation

    Intelligence

    (2010)
  • D.H. Abney et al.

    Interactive effects in transfer-appropriate processing for event-based prospective memory: The roles of effort, ongoing task, and PM cue properties

    Memory & Cognition

    (2013)
  • N. Adamo et al.

    Response time intra-subject variability: Commonalities between children with autism spectrum disorders and children with ADHD

    European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry

    (2014)
  • D.A. Balota et al.

    Word frequency, repetition, and lexicality effects in word recognition tasks: Beyond measures of central tendency

    Journal of Experimental Psychology. General

    (1999)
  • P. Barrouillet et al.

    Time constraints and resource sharing in adults' working memory spans

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

    (2004)
  • D.M. Bayliss et al.

    Mapping the developmental constraints on working memory span performance

    Developmental Psychology

    (2005)
  • J. van Belle et al.

    Developmental differences in intra-individual variability in children with ADHD and ASD

    Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry

    (2015)
  • J. Biederman et al.

    Impact of executive function deficits and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) on academic outcomes in children

    Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

    (2004)
  • E. Borella et al.

    Beyond interference control impairment in ADHD: Evidence from increased intraindividual variability in the color-stroop test

    Child Neuropsychology

    (2013)
  • W.M. Buzy et al.

    Intra-individual variability among children with ADHD on a working memory task: An ex-Gaussian approach

    Child Neuropsychology

    (2009)
  • C.K. Conners

    Conners' rating scales—3 technical manual

    (2008)
  • A.R. Conway et al.

    Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user's guide

    Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

    (2005)
  • N. Cowan et al.

    Children's working-memory processes: A response-timing analysis

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

    (2003)
  • M.R.W. Dawson

    Fitting the ex-Gaussian equation to reaction time distributions

    Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers

    (1988)
  • Deary, I. J., & Stough, C. (1996). Intelligence and inspection time - achievements, prospects, and problems. American...
  • G.J. Dupaul et al.

    Parent ratings of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms: Factor structure and normative data

    Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment

    (1998)
  • G.J. Dupaul et al.

    Preschool children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Impairments in behavioral, social, and school functioning

    Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

    (2001)
  • J.N. Epstein et al.

    Evidence for higher reaction time variability for children with ADHD on a range of cognitive tasks including reward and event rate manipulations

    Neuropsychology

    (2011)
  • K.A. Fanti et al.

    Trajectories of pure and co-occurring internalizing and externalizing problems from age 2 to age 12: Findings from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development study of early child care

    Developmental Psychology

    (2010)
  • Findlay, J. M. (1978). Estimates on probability functions - more virulent Pest. Perception & Psychophysics, 23(2),...
  • E. Fliers et al.

    Motor coordination problems in children and adolescents with ADHD rated by parents and teachers: Effects of age and gender

    Journal of Neural Transmisssion

    (2008)
  • Cited by (15)

    • Unraveling the cognitive correlates of heart rate variability with the drift diffusion model

      2022, International Journal of Psychophysiology
      Citation Excerpt :

      The current tau-vmHRV associations only slightly decreased in size when adjusting for covariates, which were not significantly different in size than the analogous zero-order correlations. Also as predicted, individuals with high resting vmHRV had faster drift rates, the DDM parameter reflecting goal-directed cognitive processes (Schmiedek et al., 2007; Galloway-Long and Huang-Pollock, 2018). Importantly, this effect was limited to incongruent trials (i.e., when cognitive inhibition was needed), thus supporting the link between drift rate and cognitive inhibition as opposed to other cognitive control subcomponents such as shifting and working memory.

    • Examining reaction time variability on the stop-signal task in the ABCD study

      2023, Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text