SBNeC 2010
Resumo:F.047


Prêmio
F.047Impairment in stimulus discrimination and cognitive processing in children with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) suggested by event-related potential.
Autores:Fernando Silva Del Piero Gama (UNIVIX - Faculdade BrasileiraUFES - Universidade Federal do Espirito Santo) ; Giselle Alves de Oliveira (UFES - Universidade Federal do Espirito Santo) ; Tiago Santos da Silva (UFES - Universidade Federal do Espirito Santo) ; Priscila Sangi (UFES - Universidade Federal do Espirito Santo) ; Bianca Pinheiro Lanzetta (UFES - Universidade Federal do Espirito Santo) ; Jane Tagarro Correa Ferreira (UFES - Universidade Federal do Espirito Santo) ; Ester Miyuki Nakamura-palacios (UFES - Universidade Federal do Espirito Santo)

Resumo

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the event related potential (ERP) components under oddball paradigm in children diagnosed with ADHD (combined type) and age-matched control. METHODS: This was a longitudinal study (case-control type) in 12 children from both genders aged between 7 to 11 years old from pediatric outpatient service specialized in ADHD from the University Hospital from the Federal University of Espírito Santo, and 12 age-matched controls from Vitória’s local schools, which had ERP registered under oddball paradigm. The mean amplitude and the 50% area latency of N2 and P3 waveforms from ERP recorded in Fz, Cz and Pz sites were compared between groups. RESULTS: Children diagnosed with ADHD showed a significant smaller mean amplitude for N2 waveform (Fz -4,47± 0,82 ; Cz -2,15 ± 0,56 ; Pz 0,12 ± 0,48) compared to control children (Fz -7,56 ± 2,25 ; Cz -5,97 ± 2,22 ; Pz -1,89 ± 1,36) in all three electrode locations (Fz, Cz and Pz) for the target stimulus (or significant, that had to be registered by a motor response) and also to the non-target stimulus (or non-significant, that should not to be answered). There was no difference in the 50% area latency between groups. The mean amplitude of P3 waveform (evident only for target stimulus ERP) was significantly smaller in ADHD group in Pz site (1,92 ± 0,56) (control 2,13 ± 0,27), whereas the 50% area latency was significantly larger in Fz and Cz sites in ADHD group (Fz 351,7 ± 16,90 ; Cz 356,4 ± 15,68) compared to control (Fz 333,5 ± 14,75 ; Cz 340,7 ± 15,24). CONCLUSION: ADHD children showed impaired stimulus discrimination, a delay in the attentional processing and a possible central cognitive impairment.


Palavras-chave:  ADHD, Children, Event related potential, P300