4.3 Article

Compensatory brain activation in children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder during a simplified Go/No-go task

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEURAL TRANSMISSION
卷 119, 期 5, 页码 613-619

出版社

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00702-011-0744-0

关键词

Response inhibition; ADHD; fMRI; Compensatory brain activation

资金

  1. Shanghai Children's Medical Center
  2. Shanghai Key Laboratory of Children's Environmental Health [10DZ2272200, 09DZ2200900]
  3. Shanghai Pudong New Area Science and Technology Development [PKJ2009-Y03]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Given that a number of recent studies have shown attenuated brain activation in prefrontal regions in children with ADHD, it has been recognized as a disorder in executive function. However, fewer studies have focused exclusively on the compensatory brain activation in ADHD. The present study objective was to investigate the compensatory brain activation patterns during response inhibition (RI) processing in ADHD children. In this study, 15 ADHD children and 15 sex-, age-, and IQ-matched control children were scanned with a 3-T MRI equipment while performing a simplified letter Go/No-go task. The results showed more brain activation in the ADHD group compared with the control group, whereas the accuracy and reaction time of behavioral performance were the same. Children with ADHD did not activate the normal RI brain circuits, which are thought to be predominantly located in the right middle/inferior frontal gyrus (BA46/44), right inferior parietal regions (BA40), and pre-SMA(BA6), but instead, activated brain regions, such as the left inferior frontal cortex, the right inferior temporal cortex, the right precentral gyrus, the left postcentral gyrus, the inferior occipital cortex, the middle occipital cortex, the right calcarine, the right hippocampus, the right midbrain, and the cerebellum. Our conclusion is that children with ADHD tend to compensatorily use more posterior and diffusive brain regions to sustain normal RI function.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据