Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: using P300 topography to choose optimal treatment

References

• American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th Edition). American Psychiatric Association, Washington DC, WA, USA (1994).
   Google Scholar
• Pelham WE, Gnagy EM, Burrows-Maclean L et al. Once-a day-concerta methylphendiate versus three-times-daily methylphenidate in laboratory and natural settings. Pediatrics107, E105 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Biederman J, Baldessarini RJ, Wright V, Knee D, Harmatz JS. A double-blind placebo-controlled study of desipramine in the treatment of ADD: I. Efficacy. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry28, 777–784 (1989).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michelson D, Allen AJ, Busner J et al. Once-daily atomoxetine treatment for children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomized, placebo-controlled study. Am. J. Psychiatry159, 1896–1901 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DuPaul GJ, Power TJ, Anastopoulos AD, Reid R. ADHD Rating Scale-IV. Checklist, Norms, and Clinical Interpretations. The Guilford Press, NY, USA (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Sangal RB, Sangal JM. What is a significant response in drug studies of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: statistical significance is necessary, but is it sufficient? Psychopharmacol. Bull.37, 50–58 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Wilens TE, McBurnett K, Bukstein O et al. Multisite controlled study of OROS methylphenidate in the treatment of adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med160, 82–90 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Picton TW. The P300 wave of the human event-related potential. J. Clin. Neurophysiology9, 456–479 (1992).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klorman R, Salzman LF, Pass HL, Borgstedt AD, Dainer KB. Effects of methylphenidate on hyperactive children’s evoked responses during passive and active attention. Psychophysiology16, 23–29 (1979).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holcomb PJ, Ackerman PT, Dykman RA. Cognitive event-related brain potentials in children with attention and reading deficits. Psychophysiology22, 656–667 (1985).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holcomb PJ, Ackerman PT, Dykman RA. Auditory event-related potentials in attention and reading disabled boys. Int. J. Psychophysiol.3, 263–273 (1986).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Klorman R. Cognitive event-related potentials in attention deficit disorder. J. Learn. Disabil.24, 130–140 (1991).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robaey P, Breton F, Dugas M, Renault B. An event-related potential study of controlled and automatic processes in 6–8 year-old boys with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Electroenceph. Clin. Neurophysiol.82, 330–340 (1992).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Satterfield JH, Schell AM, Nicholas T. Preferential neural processing of attended stimuli in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and normal boys. Psychophysiology31, 1–10 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuperman S, Johnson B, Arndt S, Lindgreen S, Wolraich M. Quantitative EEG differences in a nonclinical sample of children with ADHD and undifferentiated ADD. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry35, 1009–1017 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon E, Cooper N, Rennie C, Hermens D, Williams LM. Integrative neuroscience: the role of a standardized database. Clin. EEG Neurosci.36, 64–75 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnstone SI, Barry RJ. Auditory event-related potentials to a two-tone discrimination paradigm in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Psychiatry Res.64, 179–192 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazarro I, Anderson J, Gordon E, Clarke S, Leong J, Meares R. Single trial variability within the P300 (250–500 ms) processing window in adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Psychiatry Res.73, 91–101 (1997).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lazarro I, Gordon E, Whitmont S, Meares R, Clarke S. The modulation of late component event related potentials by pre-stimulus EEG η activity in ADHD. Int. J. Neurosci.107, 247–264 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sangal JM, Sangal RB, Persky B. Abnormal auditory P300 topography in attention deficit disorder predicts poor response to pemoline. Clin. Electroencephalogr.26, 204–213 (1995).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kilpelainen R, Partanen J, Karhu J. What does the P300 brain response measure in children? New insight from stimulus sequence studies. Neuroreport10, 2625–2630 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sunohara GA, Malone MA, Rovet J, Humphries T, Roberts W, Taylor MJ. Effect of methylphenidate in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): ERP evidence. Neuropsychopharmacology21, 218–228 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steger J, Imhof K, Steinhausen H-C, Brandeis D. Brain mapping of bilateral interactions in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and control boys. Clin. Neurophysiol.111, 1141–1156 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barry RJ, Johnstone SJ, Clarke AR. A review of electrophysiology in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: II. Event-related potentials. Clin. Neurophysiol.114, 184–198 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sangal JM, Sangal RB, Persky B. Prolonged P300 latency in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder predicts poor response to imipramine. Clin. Electroencephalogr.27, 191–201 (1996).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sangal JM, Sangal RB. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: cognitive evoked potential (P300) topography predicts treatment response to methylphenidate. Clin. Neurophysiol.115, 188–193 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sangal JM, Sangal RB. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: cognitive evoked potential (p300) amplitude predicts treatment response to atomoxetine. Clin. Neurophysiol.116, 640–647 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sangal RB, Sangal JM. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: use of cognitive evoked potential (P300) to predict treatment response. Clin. Neurophysiol.117, 1996–2006 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buitelaar JK, Van Der Gaag RJ, Swaab-Barneveld H, Kuiper M. Prediction of clinical response to methylphenidate in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry34, 1025–1032 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharbrough F, Chatrian G, Lesser RP et al.Guidelines for Sandard Electrode Position Nomenclature. American EEG Society, CT, USA (1990).
   Google Scholar
• Binnie CD, McGillivray BB. Brain mapping – a useful tool or a dangerous toy? J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatr.2, 527–529 (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Sangal RB, Sangal JM. P300 latency and age: a quadratic regression explains their relationship from age 5–85. Clin. Electroencephalogr.29, 1–6 (1998).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sangal RB, Sangal JM. Topography of auditory and visual p300 in normal children. Clin. Electroencephalogr.27, 46–51 (1996).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar