Background

A neurobiological-based classification of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) subtypes has thus far remained elusive. The aim of this study was to use oscillatory changes in the electroencephalogram (EEG) related to informative cue processing, motor preparation, and top-down control to investigate neurophysiological differences between typically developing (TD) adolescents, and those diagnosed with predominantly inattentive (IA) or combined (CB) (associated with symptoms of inattention as well as impulsivity/hyperactivity) subtypes of ADHD.

Methods

The EEG was recorded from 57 rigorously screened adolescents (12 to 17 years of age; 23 TD, 17 IA, and 17 CB), while they performed a cued flanker task. We examined the oscillatory changes in theta (3-5 Hz), alpha (8-12 Hz), and beta (22-25 Hz) EEG bands after cues that informed participants with which hand they would subsequently be required to respond.

Results

Relative to TD adolescents, the IA group showed significantly less postcue alpha suppression, suggesting diminished processing of the cue in the visual cortex, whereas the CB group showed significantly less beta suppression at the electrode contralateral to the cued response hand, suggesting poor motor planning. Finally, both ADHD subtypes showed weak functional connectivity between frontal theta and posterior alpha, suggesting common top-down control impairment.

Conclusions

We found both distinct and common task-related neurophysiological impairments in ADHD subtypes. Our results suggest that task-induced changes in EEG oscillations provide an objective measure, which in conjunction with other sources of information might help distinguish between ADHD subtypes and therefore aid in diagnoses and evaluation of treatment.

Working memory (WM) deficits are key in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Nevertheless, WM is not universally impaired in ADHD. Additionally, the neural basis for WM deficits in ADHD has not been conclusively established, with regions including the prefrontal cortex, cerebellum, and caudate being implicated. These contradictions may be related to conceptualizations of WM capacity, such as load (amount of information) versus operational-complexity (maintenance-recall or manipulation). For instance, relative to neurotypical (NT) individuals, complex WM operations could be impaired in ADHD, while simpler operations are spared. Alternatively, all operations may be impaired at higher loads. Here, we compared the impact of these two components of WM capacity: load and operational-complexity, between ADHD and NT, behaviorally and neurally. We hypothesized that the impact of WM load would be greater in ADHD, and the neural activation would be altered. Participants (age-range 12-23 years; 50 ADHD (18 females); 82 NT (41 females)) recalled three or four objects (load) in forward or backward order (operational-complexity) during functional magnetic resonance imaging scanning. The effects of diagnosis and task were compared on performance and neural engagement. Behaviorally, we found significant interactions between diagnosis and load, and between diagnosis, load, and complexity. Neurally, we found an interaction between diagnosis and load in the right striatum, and between diagnosis and complexity in the right cerebellum and left occipital gyrus. The ADHD group displayed hypo-activation compared to NT group during higher load and greater complexity. This informs mechanisms of functional problems related to WM in adolescents and young adults with ADHD (e.g., academic performance) and remedial interventions (e.g., WM-training).