PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 7890822

Methylphenidate and information processing. Part 1: Differentiation between responders and nonresponders; Part 2: Efficacy in responders.

Abstract

Part 1 of this study attempted to discriminate clinical responders and nonresponders to methylphenidate (MPH) on the basis of neuropsychological deficit profiles. Part 2 addressed the question to what extent MPH might ameliorate these deficits. Hyperactive clinical responders (n = 30) and nonresponders (n = 28) to MPH, were compared to normal controls (n = 27) on selective and sustained attention tasks and on conventional psychological and neurological measures. The responders took part in a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled crossover study. They ingested a placebo (PL) or MPH (0.3-0.6 mg/kg/day) during 4 weeks, and were then tested. After crossover, another period of 4 weeks was concluded by a second test series. Compared to controls, both responders and nonresponders showed attention deficits in encoding, memory search, and decision operations, as well as in focused and sustained attention, vigilance, and use of feedback. These deficits were the most severe in the responders. Anamnestic data, IQ scores, and neurological variables did not discriminate between groups. MPH selectively alleviates attention deficits. MPH did not affect divided attention, except for an increased accuracy of response organization. The drug, however, greatly improved focused and sustained attention, vigilance, impulsivity, and the behavioral adaptivity to feedback.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L M de Sonneville, C Njiokiktjien, H Bos. 1994. Methylphenidate and information processing. Part 1: Differentiation between responders and nonresponders; Part 2: Efficacy in responders.. https://doi.org/10.1080/01688639408402700

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

A low glycaemic index breakfast cereal preferentially prevents children's cognitive performance from declining throughout the morning.

This study investigated whether the glycaemic index (GI) of breakfast cereal differentially affects children's attention and memory. Using a balanced cross-over design, on two consecutive mornings 64 children aged 6-11 years were given a high GI cereal and a low GI cereal in a counterbalanced order. They performed a series of computerised tests of attention and memory, once prior to breakfast and three times following breakfast at hourly intervals. The results indicate that children's performance declines throughout the morning and that this decline can be significantly reduced following the intake of a low GI cereal as compared with a high GI cereal on measures of accuracy of attention (M=-6.742 and -13.510, respectively, p<0.05) and secondary memory (M=-30.675 and -47.183, respectively, p<0.05).

Attention↗

Inhibitory control test is a simple method to diagnose minimal hepatic encephalopathy and predict development of overt hepatic encephalopathy.

OBJECTIVES: To compare inhibitory control test (ICT), a simple/rapid test of attention, to a standard psychometric battery (SPT) to diagnose minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) and predict development of overt hepatic encephalopathy (OHE) in cirrhotic patients. METHODS: Fifty nonalcoholic cirrhotics and 50 age/educational-status-matched controls were given ICT and SPT in the same sitting. Performance impaired beyond two standard deviations of controls was considered MHE in cirrhotics. ICT results (lure/target response and lures/person) were compared between controls and cirrhotics and within cirrhotics with/without MHE. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis was used to study ICT for MHE diagnosis. Twenty subjects were administered SPT and ICT twice to assess test-retest reliability. All cirrhotics were followed routinely for the development of OHE. RESULTS: Cirrhotics performed worse than controls on SPT and ICT. Using SPT, 39 cirrhotics had MHE. ICT was administered faster than SPT (15 vs 37 min). Cirrhotics with MHE had significantly higher lure (28%vs 3%) and lower target response (91%vs 96%) compared with those without MHE. Lure/person >5 had 90% sensitivity/specificity for MHE diagnosis. AUC for receiver-operating characteristic for lures alone was 95.8%. Lure and target responses were highly correlated (r= 0.9) between sessions showing high test-retest reliability. Five (10%) patients developed OHE on f/u of 26 +/- 10 months; all five had been diagnosed with MHE using ICT and SPT. None of the five patients with discordant results on SPT and ICT developed OHE. CONCLUSIONS: ICT has good sensitivity/specificity for MHE diagnosis, is reliable and is equivalent to SPT for predicting OHE development.

Attention↗