Examining Inhibitory Control Deficits in ADHD and mTBI Using the Go/No-go Task: An ERP study
Presented During:
Thursday, June 26, 2025: 11:30 AM - 12:45 PM
Brisbane Convention & Exhibition Centre
Room:
M3 (Mezzanine Level)
Poster No:
750
Submission Type:
Abstract Submission
Authors:
Yiling Wang1, Yuhao Ma1, Xiaoqian Yu1, Jeffrey Epstein2, Megan Narad2
Institutions:
1Wenzhou-Kean University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, 2Department of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH
First Author:
Co-Author(s):
Jeffrey Epstein
Department of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine
Cincinnati, OH
Department of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine
Cincinnati, OH
Introduction:
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder affecting approximately 8-12% of school-aged children, characterized by inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity (Delgado, 2009). Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), also known as concussion, is referred to as a frequent form of traumatic brain injury that typically presents symptoms such as headaches, fatigue, and cognitive impairments (McInnes et al., 2017). A core deficit of ADHD is inhibitory control impairment (Johnstone et al., 2009). Similarly, previous research indicates that both children with mTBI and ADHD exhibit deficits in response inhibition, a critical component of executive functioning (Ornstein et al., 2013). Our study examined whether Event-Related Potential (ERP) indices of components can effectively differentiate children and adolescents with ADHD from neurobehavioral typical and mTBI.
Methods:
Participants included 29 children with ADHD, 29 typical neurobehavioral children (aged 7-12, 37% female), and 41 teenagers with Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) (aged 9-18, 42% female). EEG data were recorded using a 128-channel EEG net during a 9-minute auditory Go/No-Go task with 240 Go and 60 No-Go trials. Error rates assessed behavioral performance. This study focused on the difference waves of N2 (N2d) and P3 (P3d), calculated as the difference between N2 and P3 amplitudes elicited during Go and Nogo trials (N2go subtracted from N2nogo; P3go subtracted from P3nogo) (Bokura et al., 2001). Despite controversial reports, it has been widely accepted that these components, elicited by Nogo stimuli, i.e., N2nogo (N2d) and P3nogo (P3d), are associated with two aspects of inhibitory control: conflict monitoring and response inhibition (Yang et al., 2009). Group comparisons were performed using one-way ANOVA for behavioral accuracy, raw ERP amplitudes, and difference waves. We hypothesize that children with ADHD will show a smaller Nogo-N2 (N2d) and Nogo-P3 (P3d) than the controls due to impaired inhibitory control.
Results:
Behavioral accuracy was significantly different across groups (F2,96 = 5.14, p < .001), with the ADHD group (M = 0.11, SD = .09) showing higher error rates compared to controls (M = 0.06, SD = .06, p < .05) and mTBI participants (M = 0.05, SD = .05, p < .01). For ERPs, a main effect of stimuli was observed for Nogo-P3 (F1,36 = 22.49, p < .001), with larger amplitudes in No-Go trials than in Go trials. No other main or interaction effects were found significant. Additionally, no significant effects were observed for Nogo-N2. Group differences in P3d were significant (F2,68 = 3.14, p < .05). Post hoc Tukey's test revealed that controls (M = 3.75, SD = 2.88) showed larger P3d than both ADHD (M = 1.58, SD = 3.52, p = .08) and mTBI (M = 1.8, SD = 2.82, p = .07). No significant differences were found for N2d across groups.
Conclusions:
Both the Control group and the mTBI group performed better than the ADHD group on the auditory Go/No Go Task, indicating impaired response inhibition in ADHD children behaviorally. The control group also exhibited a larger Nogo effect of P3 (P3d) than the ADHD group, whereas no significant difference in P3d was observed between the mTBI and ADHD groups, suggesting that motor system inhibition is impaired in both ADHD and mTBI groups. In contrast, the Nogo effect of N2 (N2d) was similar across all three groups, indicating that the conflict monitoring system remains intact in children with ADHD and those with mTBI. Interestingly, the mTBI group demonstrated impaired neural measures of response inhibition without deficits in behavioral measures, suggesting that neural measures could be potentially more sensitive indicators of response inhibition than behavioral measures. Alternatively, the Nogo effect of P3d might reflect both response inhibition and attention, which is not impaired in mTBI like in ADHD. In conclusion, these findings point to a dysfunction of inhibitory control in both ADHD and mTBI populations.
Higher Cognitive Functions:
Executive Function, Cognitive Control and Decision Making 1
Modeling and Analysis Methods:
EEG/MEG Modeling and Analysis
Novel Imaging Acquisition Methods:
EEG
Perception, Attention and Motor Behavior:
Attention: Auditory/Tactile/Motor 2
Keywords:
Attention Deficit Disorder
Cognition
Electroencephaolography (EEG)
Trauma
1|2Indicates the priority used for review
Abstract Information
By submitting your proposal, you grant permission for the Organization for Human Brain Mapping (OHBM) to distribute your work in any format, including video, audio print and electronic text through OHBM OnDemand, social media channels, the OHBM website, or other electronic publications and media.
The Open Science Special Interest Group (OSSIG) is introducing a reproducibility challenge for OHBM 2025. This new initiative aims to enhance the reproducibility of scientific results and foster collaborations between labs. Teams will consist of a “source” party and a “reproducing” party, and will be evaluated on the success of their replication, the openness of the source work, and additional deliverables. Click here for more information. Propose your OHBM abstract(s) as source work for future OHBM meetings by selecting one of the following options:
Please indicate below if your study was a "resting state" or "task-activation” study.
Healthy subjects only or patients (note that patient studies may also involve healthy subjects):
Was this research conducted in the United States?
Are you Internal Review Board (IRB) certified? Please note: Failure to have IRB, if applicable will lead to automatic rejection of abstract.
Were any human subjects research approved by the relevant Institutional Review Board or ethics panel? NOTE: Any human subjects studies without IRB approval will be automatically rejected.
Were any animal research approved by the relevant IACUC or other animal research panel? NOTE: Any animal studies without IACUC approval will be automatically rejected.
Please indicate which methods were used in your research:
Provide references using APA citation style.
Delgado, S.V. (2019). Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Children and Adolescents. DeckerMed Family Medicine.
Johnstone, S. J., Barry, R. J., Markovska, V., Dimoska, A., & Clarke, A. R. (2009). Response inhibition and interference control in children with AD/HD: a visual ERP investigation. International journal of psychophysiology: official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology, 72(2), 145–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2008.11.007
Ornstein, T. J., Max, J. E., Schachar, R., Dennis, M., Barnes, M., Ewing-Cobbs, L., & Levin, H. S. (2013). Response inhibition in children with and without ADHD after traumatic brain injury. Journal of neuropsychology, 7(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-6653.2012.02027.x
Yang, B., Yang, S., Zhao, L., Yin, L., Liu, X., & An, S. (2009). Event-related potentials in a Go/Nogo task of abnormal response inhibition in heroin addicts. Science in China. Series C, Life sciences, 52(8), 780–788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11427-009-0106-4