Objective: To bridge theory of response inhibition and learning in children with ADHD. Method: Thirty ADHD and 30 non-ADHD children (ages 9-12) were compared under concurrent variable interval (VI-15 sec., VI-30 sec. and VI- 45 sec.) reinforcement schedules that required the child to switch between the three schedules under conditions of experimentally controlled inhibition (change over delay [COD] vs. No COD). Classical matching law was used to evaluate children’s success in maximizing reinforcement opportunities. Results: Children with ADHD showed normal matching only when immediate reinforcement for responding was blocked by the presence of a 3-s COD. Without a COD, ADHD children failed to conform to the normal matching law. Non-ADHD children’s behavior fit the matching law (i.e., rate of response was proportional to rate of reinforcement) whether a COD was present or absent. Conclusions: Results supported other findings that response inhibition is a key mechanism in responses to reinforcement schedules by children with ADHD and that the absence of contingencies that inhibit impulsive responding might impair complex learning in which the child must choose between many different behavioral options, each with associated reinforcement schedules. (J. of Att. Dis. 2010; 13(4) 358-368)
Aase, H., & Sagvolden, T. ( 2006). Infrequent, but not frequent, reinforcers produce more variable responding and deficient sustained attention in young children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 457-471.
2.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: Fourth edition (DSM-IV) . Washington, DC: Author.
3.
Aron, A.R., & Poldrack, R.A. (2005). The cognitive neuroscience of response inhibition: relevance for genetic research in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 57, 1285-1292.
4.
Baum, W.M. ( 1974). On two types of deviation from the matching law: Bias and undermatching. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 231-242.
5.
Baum, W.M. ( 1975). Time allocation in human vigilance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 23, 45-53.
6.
Bradshaw, C.M., Ruddle, H.V., & Szabadi, E. ( 1981). Studies of concurrent performance in humans. In C. M. Bradshaw, E. Szabadi, & C. F. Lowe (Eds.), Quantification of steady-state operant behavior (pp. 79-90). Amsterdam : Elsevier/North Holland Biomedical Press.
7.
Buskist, W.F., & Miller, H.L. ( 1981). Concurrent operant performance in humans: Matching when food is the reinforcer. Psychological Record, 31, 95-100.
8.
Chung, S.H., & Herrnstein, R.J. (1967). Choice and delay of reinforcement . Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 10, 67-74.
9.
Herrnstein, R.J. ( 1961). Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 267-272.
10.
Herrnstein, R.J. ( 1970). On the law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 243-266.
11.
Martinnussen, R., Hayden, J., Hogg-Johnson, S., & Tannock, R. ( 2005). A meta-analysis of working memory impairments in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 44, 377-384.
12.
McDowell, J.J. ( 1981). On the validity and utility of Herrnstein’s hyperbola in applied behavior analysis. In C. M. Bradshaw , E. Szabadi, & C. F. Lowe (Eds.), Qualification of steady-state operant behavior (pp. 311-324). Amsterdam: Elsevier/North Holland Biomedical Press.
13.
McDowell, J.J. ( 2005). On the classic and modern theories of matching. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 84, 111-127.
14.
Mook, D.M., Jeffrey, J., & Neuringer, A. ( 1993). Spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR) readily learn to vary but not repeat instrumental responses. Behavioral and Neural Biology, 59, 126-135.
15.
Murray, L.K., & Kollins, S.H. ( 2000). Effects of methylphenidate sensitivity to reinforcement in children diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: An application of matching law. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 573-591.
16.
National Institute of Mental Health. (1997 ). The National Institute of Mental Health Diagnostic Interview Schedule: IV. New York: Columbia University.
17.
O’Donohue, W.T., Plaud, J.J., & Hecker, J.E. ( 1992). The possible function of positive reinforcement in homebound agoraphobia: A case study. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 23, 303-312.
18.
Parry, P.A., & Douglas, V.I. ( 1983). Effects of reinforcement on concept identification in hyperactive children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology , 2, 327-340.
19.
Pelham, W.E., Milich, R., Murphy, D.A., & Murphy, H.A. ( 1989). Normative data on the Iowa Conners Teacher Rating Scale . Journal of Clinical Psychology, 18, 259-262.
20.
Pennington, B.F. ( 1997). Dimensions of executive functions in normal and abnormal development. In N. Krasnegor, R. Lyon, & P. Goldman-Rakic (Eds.), Development of the prefrontal cortex: Evolution, neurobiology, and behavior (pp. 265-281). Baltimore MD: Brookes Publishing.
21.
Sagvolden, T. ( 2006). The alpha-2A adrenoceptor agonist guanfacine improves sustained attention and reduces overactivity and impulsiveness in an animal model of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Behavioral and Brain Functions, 2, 41.
22.
Sagvolden, T., Johansen, E.B., Aase, H. & Russell, V.A. ( 2005). A dynamic developmental theory of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) predominately hyperactive/impulsive and combined subtypes . Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 397-419.
23.
Shaw, K., Bradshaw, C.M., & Szabadi, E. ( 1989). Performance of humans in concurrent variable-ratio schedules of monetary reinforcement. Psychological Reports, 65, 515-520.
24.
Tamm, L., Menon, V., Ringel, J., & Reiss, A. ( 2004). Event-related f-MRI Evidence of frontemporal involvement in aberrant response inhibition and task switching in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 43, 1430-1440.
25.
Weschler, D. ( 1991). The Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children- III. New York: Psychological Corporation.
26.
Willcutt, E.G., Doyle, A.E., Nigg, J.T., Faraone, S.V., & Pennington, B.F. (2005). Validity of the executive function theory of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A meta-analytic review. Biological Psychiatry, 57, 1336-1346.
27.
Williams, J., & Dayan, P. ( 2005). Dopamine, learning, and impulsivity: a biological account of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 15, 160-179.
