Objective Children born very preterm are at increased risk of inattention, but it remains unclear whether the underlying processes are the same as in their term-born peers. Drift diffusion modeling (DDM) may better characterize the cognitive processes underlying inattention than standard reaction time (RT) measures. This study used DDM to compare the processes related to inattentive behavior in preterm and term-born children. Method Performance on a cued continuous performance task was compared between 33 children born very preterm (VP; ≤ 32 weeks' gestation) and 32 term-born peers (≥ 37 weeks' gestation), aged 8-11 years. Both groups included children with a wide spectrum of parent-rated inattention (above average attention to severe inattention). Performance was defined using standard measures (RT, RT variability and accuracy) and modeled using a DDM. A hierarchical regression assessed the extent to which standard or DDM measures explained variance in parent-rated inattention and whether these relationships differed between VP and term-born children. Results There were no group differences in performance on standard or DDM measures of task performance. Parent-rated inattention correlated significantly with hit rate, RT variability, and drift rate (a DDM estimate of processing efficiency) in one or both groups. Regression analysis revealed that drift rate was the best predictor of parent-rated inattention. This relationship did not differ significantly between groups. Conclusions Findings suggest that less efficient information processing is a common mechanism underlying inattention in both VP and term-born children. This study demonstrates the benefits of using DDM to better characterize atypical cognitive processing in clinical samples. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
How this agent works
It searches only this paper’s licensed source text, returns matching passages, and refuses to invent an answer when the record is silent.
- Original journal
- Neuropsychology
- Published
- 2019-10-03
- DOI
- 10.1037/neu0000590
- Open record
- PMC6939604
The original authors and American Psychological Association do not endorse this journal or its agent. Verify findings in the canonical article before making consequential decisions.