ADxS.org Logo
ADxS.org Logo
Search Donations Recent changes ADHD forum Deutsche Version
Register

Already have an account? Login

Header Image
4. Biomarkers in ADHD - theoretical approaches for objective measurement methods?

Sitemap

The ADxS.org project
Abstract from ADxS.org
Symptoms
Consequences of ADHD
Origin
Stress
Neurological aspects
Diagnostics
Prevention
Treatment: Guide and Effect size
Treatment: Medication for ADHD
Non-drug treatment
Addresses
This and that about ADHD
Tests and surveys
Forum

4. Biomarkers in ADHD - theoretical approaches for objective measurement methods?

Previous page Next page

To date, there is no biomarker in sight that could be used to diagnose ADHD by measuring objective biological or neurological values.1

However, measurement methods have already been researched enough to validate and support diagnoses. The advantage of measurement methods is that the result is not distorted by prior knowledge, training or particular motivations (interest, hyperfocus).
However, it is known that people with ADHD “outsource” the functions of disturbed brain areas to other areas of the brain in order to compensate for the deficit. Symptoms are also reduced through coping, e.g. by avoiding situations in which the stressful symptom can occur, or individual symptoms are reduced through intensive training. If only symptoms are asked about, the symptom masked by relocation to other areas of the brain or by coping may not be noticed. This is one of the reasons why tests (including our own online tests) can never be sufficient on their own to reliably diagnose or rule out ADHD.
It is to be hoped that with further refinement of the measurement methods and knowledge about the evaluation of results, a more objective diagnosis than questionnaires and tests will be possible in the foreseeable future.

We suspect that, as with symptom testing, there will be no single biomarker that can diagnose ADHD in individuals with sufficient certainty. ADHD is a syndrome, which means that symptoms can arise from many different causes. From a syndrome perspective, biomarkers are much closer to the causes than the symptoms. Therefore, it is still much less likely to find a single unique biomarker that clearly identifies ADHD than a single symptom.
However, we believe it is entirely possible that an evaluation of a larger number of biomarkers could result in an overall score that can be used for objective diagnosis or to support it . This would correspond to the methodology of current diagnostics based on symptoms, in which the achievement of a certain number of symptoms from a larger group is used as a diagnostic criterion.

However, the fundamental problem with measuring biomarkers is that they can only ever provide a snapshot. The results of this snapshot also depend on whether the person with ADHD is experiencing acute stress at the time of measurement or not. The usual ADHD diagnosis is therefore correctly based on whether the (stress/ADHD) symptoms exist in the long term, i.e. also outside of acute circumstances that trigger particular stress.
To date, the relevant literature has not yet addressed the extent to which biomarkers can reliably distinguish long-term changes from merely acute or chronic stress reactions.

1. EEG / QEEG measurement

The measurement of QEEG or EEG can support diagnoses. Further information on QEEG and neurofeedback therapy for ADHD can be found at ⇒ Neurofeedback as ADHD therapy In the chapter Treatment and therapy.

A multifactorial 19-channel EEG analysis called “ADHD-AID” reported an ADHD diagnostic accuracy of:2

  • Accuracy: 0.991
  • Sensitivity: 0.989
  • Specificity: 0.992
  • F1 score: 0.989
  • Mathew correlation coefficient: 0.982.
  • AUC: 0.9958

Older studies reported an ADHD detection rate of an EEG transformer model with an average accuracy of 95.85% and an average AUC value of 0.9926.3 An EEG classification model with machine learning reported a classification accuracy of 98.28% to 98.86%.4 Using phase-based analysis, one study preidentified two biomarkers that differentiate ADHD in children from healthy children with 99.174% accuracy:5

  • the subgraph centrality of the phase shift index of brain connectivity within the beta and delta frequency bands
  • the node betweenness centrality of the inter-site phase cluster connectivity within the delta and theta bands

In practice, however, people with ADHD do not have to be distinguished from healthy people, but ADHD has to be distinguished from other disorders of unknown composition. This is a much more complex task than all the methods presented so far have been able to solve.

1.1. Beta-theta ratio as a diagnostic tool

Attempts have been made to use the theta-beta ratio as a diagnostic tool for ADHD.
Although individual studies on this have appeared promising, this diagnostic approach does not yet seem suitable for diagnosing ADHD.

The theta-beta ratio is said to be significantly altered in ADHD.

Using quantitative encephalographic measurements (QEEG), it was found that in people with ADHD there is too little activation in the area of beta waves (13-30 Hz), which are important for concentrated alertness, while theta waves (4-8 Hz), which are associated with daydreams, slipping away attention, transition to sleep, creativity, are too strong.
The increased theta-beta ratio was so clear in a study of people with ADHD that 98% of people with ADHD (of the purely inattentive type, ADHD-I, as well as the mixed type) could be distinguished from healthy people on the basis of the theta-beta ratio in children. The degree of deviation in the theta-beta ratio correlated with the intensity of the ADHD symptoms.6

However, this result could not be replicated in all follow-up studies. Ogirim et al 2012 were only able to correctly identify around 60% of n = 101 test subjects, including 63 people with ADHD, using the theta-beta ratio, whereas omission errors in a sustained attention task resulted in 85% correct diagnoses.7 Another study found in adults with ADHD that the theta-beta ratio could not diagnose ADHD, whereas absolute and relative EEG power with eyes open differentiated ADHD from controls. The best ADHD predictors were named as:8

  • Increased power in delta, theta and low-alpha over central parietal regions
  • Increased power in low beta in frontal regions
  • Increased power in mid-beta over parietal regions.

A recent meta-analysis of 17 studies found a total sample Effect size of p = 0.58 for absolute theta and p = 0.92 for relative theta. The beta-theta ratio or the increased theta value is therefore suitable as a diagnostic instrument in a certain development phase and could be further developed as a diagnostic instrument.9

The oversized theta-beta ratio is reduced in adulthood,1011 so that a diagnosis with this, if at all, could probably only be considered for children.

A meta-study found no conclusive link between the theta-beta ratio and ADHD. Unfortunately, however, no distinction was made between subtypes.12 However, an increased theta-beta ratio is said to predict responding to treatment with stimulants or neurofeedback.12

Our discussions with a neurofeedback therapist revealed some interesting findings:

  • Not only in ADHD, but also in a number of other mental disorders, such as depression, Compulsions, trauma or even migraine sufferers, beta increases in a state of relaxation, while it decreases in healthy people when they relax.
    This - characteristic - increase in beta levels during relaxation could possibly explain the symptoms of racing thoughts and sleep problems.
    We conclude from this that the theta-beta ratio in the laboratory environment can at best enable a clear diagnosis to be made as a differentiation of a group of people with ADHD compared to a group of (proven) healthy people. However, it is probably not suitable as a diagnostic tool in real life - for people for whom it is not known whether they suffer from ADHD or another Disorder, or are healthy - because deviations in the theta and beta range occur in a large number of mental disorders and the alternative to the presence of ADHD, unlike in the test environment, is not necessarily “healthy”, but includes the possibility of a number of other mental disorders or tendencies.
  • ADHD-HI and ADHD-I have characteristically different theta/beta profiles.
    • In ADHD-HI and ADHD-C (with hyperactivity), theta is typically too low and beta is typically too high
    • In people with ADHD-I (without hyperactivity, dreamers), theta is typically too high and beta is typically too low. Here, the theta-beta ratio should therefore be too low - contrary to the postulation in the studies cited above.
    • In both groups, theta/beta training (relaxation training) proves to be helpful - in ADHD-HI, theta is trained up and beta is trained down at the same time, while in ADHD-I it is the other way round, reducing theta and increasing beta (concentration training). In both cases, it is not only the objective change in the values that is therapeutically effective, but also the learned ability to influence the values, even if this results in the values changing towards mean values.

Joint tests with a neurofeedback therapist revealed a significant influence of medication and food (sugar) on the QEEG values.

  • Methylphenidate causes greater agitation within the QEEG values within a few minutes. As expected, methylphenidate impeded the theta increase and beta decrease in ADHD-HI targeted by neurofeedback. This is not surprising as MPH is a stimulant. It explains why MPH should be taken in such a way that the effect has worn off by bedtime.
  • Sugar (2 chocolate bars within 5 minutes at 90 kg body weight) caused significant changes in the QEEG of an ADHD-HI subject.
    • Within 10 minutes, Beta1 increases considerably.
      The threshold values for theta up / beta down training had to be reduced considerably. The 85 % of the target values achieved before the sugar intake had dropped to 50 %. This means that the ability to relax had decreased drastically.
    • After 20 minutes, all values (theta, alpha, beta1, beta 2, hi-beta) were significantly reduced. Relatively speaking, however, beta 1 was now clearly above SMR. (Beta1 should be below SMR, which is why SMR training (which targets it) is the first step in neurofeedback treatment for ADHD).
    • After 30 minutes, Beta1 had caught up slightly with SMR. However, Hi-Beta was now significantly higher.

This is a single test with a single subject and therefore cannot be generalized. The subject was aware of the expected reaction. The exacerbation of his ADHD symptoms after sugar consumption had been mirrored by several people and coincided with his own observations.

As we understand it, the observation fits the description of the effect of an oligoantigenic diet for a person who is sensitive to sugar. More on oligoantigenic diet and other food influences on ADHD at ⇒ Nutrition and diet for ADHD

During a conversation about this result, we were told by another person with ADHD-HI that he has noticed a significant increase in his ADHD symptoms, especially procrastination, after consuming sugar (chocolate).

There is also the problem that different EEG measurement software products apparently use different calculation methods to determine the beta-theta ratio and therefore produce significantly different results with the same data.13 Therefore, the International Collaborative ADHD Neurofeedback (ICAN) randomized clinical trial used a fixed theta-beta ration cutoff of ≥ 4.5, which had to be measured with the Thought Technology Monastra-Lubar Assessment Suite, 1.5 SD above the norms collected with this system.

One study came to the conclusion that the theta-beta ratio of the EEG in both non-affected and persons with ADHD-C is a reflection of cognitive processing activity and can be measured using the P 300 latency in the acoustic oddball test. In contrast, absolute alpha power did not correlate with P 300 latency or amplitude in persons with ADHD-C.14

1.2. EEG-Alpha Power frontal

In 5-month-old children who were later diagnosed with ADHD, there was reduced mean frontal EEG activity during an attention task. Since only the group values differed, diagnostic use was not possible.
15

1.3. Changed slope / offset of the 1/f noise in the EEG

“1/f noise” in the EEG are arrhythmic signals in the cortex that are typical of ADHD as neural noise. Increased individual reaction time variance is a sign of increased neural noise. MPH improves this.16

In 3- to 7-year-old children with ADHD, a steeper slope and a larger offset were found with regard to the “1/f noise” in the EEG. These data correlated with altered theta/beta ratios. Both values were normalized by medication. In addition, a greater alpha power was found.17

1.4. Measurement of evoked potentials

Event-related potentials are waveforms in the electroencephalogram (EEG) that are related (correlated) to an observable event (sensory stimulus, movement).
Evoked potentials are event-related potentials in which a test person always receives the same stimulus without further instruction, so that it is purely perceptual.

The measurement of evoked potentials is an objectified diagnostic procedure. Characteristic EEG amplitude curves triggered by stimuli are measured in various regions of the brain typically affected by ADHD. A typical average amplitude curve is determined from a large number of test runs. These EEG courses can be compared with data from non-affected people and data from people with other disorders, which are collected in so-called QEEG databases.
Unfortunately, diagnosis using evoked potentials is time-consuming (4 hours of tests, which are subsequently evaluated) and therefore not cheap. At the Brain and Trauma Foundation Graubünden Switzerland in Chur, a diagnosis based on evoked potentials costs around CHF 1,250 (as of 2015).

The diagnostic accuracy of measuring evoked potentials is growing rapidly. While Strehl et al cite studies from 2005 with a (still unsatisfactory) diagnostic accuracy of 70 to 80 %, Müller et al 201118 already claim 89 % diagnostic accuracy: from a group of 212 adults with 106 persons with ADHD, 89 % of those affected were correctly diagnosed using a 19-channel system through automatic evaluation of EVP. Models with machine learning achieve 94 %19
However, these results were determined in laboratory situations in which only ADHD could be distinguished from non-affected individuals. In real-life diagnostics, ADHD can be distinguished from a variety of other disorders. It remains to be seen when this will be possible in practice using such models.

By comparison, trained diagnosticians and experienced clinicians achieved a diagnostic agreement of 88%20

One study found no significant differences in evoked potentials between twins with and without ADHD in a continuous performance task.21

A meta-analysis of 52 studies with 3,370 subjects on early (P100, N100, P200, N200, ERNNe) and late (P300, Pe, CNV) evoked potentials found in ADHD22

  • Shorter Go-P100 latencies
  • Smaller Cue-P300 amplitudes
  • Longer Go-P300 latencies
  • Smaller NoGo P300 amplitudes
  • Longer NoGo P300 latencies
  • Smaller CNV amplitudes
  • Smaller Pe amplitudes.

with considerable heterogeneity of the results and moderate effect sizes (d<0.6).

Another study came to the conclusion that evoked potentials show very different correlations with symptoms depending on the age of the test subjects (childhood or adolescence).23

The mismatch negativity (MMN) is a negative component of the event-related response in an EEG signal that is triggered by a perceptible change in a repetitive aspect of auditory stimulation (e.g. stimulus pitch, stimulus duration).24
Children with ADHD showed reduced mismatch negativity (MMN) amplitudes in response to two blocks of duration- and ISI-based deviants:25

  • MMN amplitude measurements:
    • Fz
      • ADHD: -1.2097 ± 0.2938 (continuous block); -0.8553 ± 0.4423 (ISI block)
      • Controls: -1.8325 ± 0.3689 (continuous block) and -2.0855 ± 0.3802 (ISI block)
    • Cz
      • ADHD: -1.2515 ± 0.3261 (continuous block) and -0.9367 ± 0.3432
      • Controls: -2.1319 ± 0.4445 (continuous block) and -2.7561 ± 0.4883
  • MMN latencies
    Children with ADHD showed longer MMN latencies in both experimental blocks, indicating atypical responses.
    • Fz:
    • ADHD: 239.68 ± 5.059 (continuous block) or 226.88 ± 4.885 (ISI block)
    • Controls: 228.56 ± 6.584 (continuous block) or 213.56 ± 4.153 (ISI block)
    • Cz
      • ADHD: 234.40 ± 5.741 (continuous block) and 231.44 ± 5.464 (ISI block)
      • Controls: 227.52 ± 6.710 (continuous block) and 218.00 ± 5.261 (ISI block)

1.5. Measurement of rsEEG

The measurement of 14 resting state EEG parameters was able to identify the participating people with ADHD with an accuracy of around 85% in a process optimized by machine learning.26 As it is not only possible to diagnose healthy individuals in the wild, but also other disorders, it is questionable whether the result will be accurate enough to enable meaningful application in practice.

1.6. Measurement of non-linear EEG values

According to a study, a measurement of non-linear EEG values showed a better diagnostic quality of ADHD than other EEG diagnostic methods.27

1.7. Phase space reconstruction of the EEG

One study found that phase space reconstruction of the EEG is very good at distinguishing ADHD from non-affected individuals. 28 For diagnostic use, however, a method must also be able to differentiate well between other disorders.

1.8. Gamma levels reduced in ADHD

One study reported elevated resting gamma levels in adults with ADHD in the 30 to 39 Hz range (gamma1), but not in the 39 - 48 Hz range (gamma2). Resting gamma1 power increased with age and was significantly lower in ADHD than in control subjects in early adulthood.29

1.9. EPSPatNet86: 8-point EEG measurement on 85 wavelets

A study of 85 EEG wavelet factors was able to correctly classify 87% of people with ADHD using machine learning.30 It remains to be seen what the recognition rate will be for an open group of test subjects.

1.10. EEG analysis using VMD-HT

One study used VMD-HT and other secondary EEG characteristics to distinguish between 61 people with ADHD and 60 healthy controls:31

  • an accuracy of 99.81 %
  • a sensitivity of 99.78 %
  • a specificity of 99.84 %
  • an F-1 measure of 99.83 %
  • a precision of 99.87 %
  • a false detection rate of 0.13 %.
  • Detection rate for ADHD of 99.87 %
  • Detection rate for healthy controls of 99.73 %

These impressive figures will have to be proven in the real world when not only persons with ADHD and healthy controls, but also people with other disorders are tested.

1.11. Brain complexity

An analysis of brain complexity in ADHD, including using EEG, found that brain complexity is increased in children with ADHD (with the increase being weaker than in schizophrenia (positive traits) and significantly weaker than in depression) and decreased in adults with ADHD (with the decrease being weaker than in autism and significantly weaker than in dementia).32

2. Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS)

A prospective study of 30 boys using fNIRS of the forehead while performing mental arithmetic tasks was able to identify almost 100 % of the 15 boys with ADHD.33 So far, this is a purely experimental approach.
Another study found no differences by fNIRS in ADHD34

3. Genetic testing

To date, there are no usable genetic tests for the diagnosis of ADHD.
However, initial voices are now (2020) in favor of integrating certain genetic tests (here: array CGH) into the standards of ADHD diagnostics.35

There are several difficulties for genetic diagnostics in ADHD:

  • ADHD is usually not caused by individual gene variants, but by the interaction of a large number (several hundred to thousands) of gene variants (⇒ gene candidates in ADHD) Gene candidates for ADHD)
  • The (epigenetic) expression of genes (e.g. through early childhood or chronic severe stress) can also change the gene effect independently of the gene variant.
  • It can be assumed that different combinations of the genes and forms of expression under consideration coincide in different persons with ADHD, but not all genes that contribute to the dopamine balance being disturbed, for example.
  • There is not yet a complete set of candidate genes, which is why there is no genetic test for ADHD. We have collected over one hundred and fifty gene candidates.
    ⇒ Gene candidates for ADHD.
  • Genetic tests are still too expensive to be able to test the required number of genes.
    It is possible that genetic tests will become so affordable in the coming years that they can also be used for diagnostic purposes - and subsequently to adapt individualized treatment.

4.3.1. MiRNA

One study investigated miRNAs of extracellular vesicles in serum. A longitudinal analysis examining changes in miRNA expression over time between four groups with different diagnostic trajectories (persistent diagnosis, first onset, remitted and typical development/control) found no statistically significant results. In the cross-sectional analysis, miR-328-3p was found to be upregulated in only one of 2 ADHD groups. These miRNAs may regulate the expression of genes associated with these traits in genome-wide association studies36

One review found in children with ADHD37

  • highly regulated
    • miRNA-let-7d
    • miR-132-3p
    • miR-5692b
  • down-regulated
    • miR34c-3p
    • miR-138-1
    • miR-107
    • miR-142-3p
    • miR-378
    • miR-30e-5p
    • miR-140-3
    • miR-1265p

4. Endocrine and physical biomarkers

4.1. Measurement of cortisol levels

The cortisol value has two meanings:

  • The basal = tonic = long-term value represents the basic level, which changes rhythmically throughout the day (circadian rhythm)
  • The phasic = short-term value represents a response reaction to an acute stressor

4.1.1. Measurement of the basal cortisol level

The basal cortisol level is lower in people with ADHD than in those not affected because the stress load is long-term. In the case of short-term stress, the basal cortisol level initially rises.

This difference could theoretically be used to differentiate between an acute stress reaction (increased cortisol levels) and a collapsed HPA axis regulation (reduced levels) - if the individual fluctuations between people within a group were not greater than the increase or decrease in cortisol levels compared to healthy levels.

According to this hypothesis, however, an individual change in cortisol levels upwards or downwards could be determined if these were recorded regularly (annually) from the earliest age (in children: on the occasion of standard examinations).
Without historical values of the basal cortisol level, however, such a measurement is useless.

In addition, a measurement of the morning cortisol awakening response (CAR) could provide information about the state of the HPA axis. The CAR is a persistent increase in cortisol levels that occurs 20 to 40 minutes after waking up.

A comparative graphical representation of the cortisol profiles of healthy, acutely stressed, chronically stressed, partially burned out and fully burned out people can be found in Bieger.38

However, here too there is the difficulty that without individual comparative data, an assessment of the 24-hour picture of cortisol values is barely diagnostically usable.

A measurement of cortisol in hair (which reflects long-term levels) showed that low cortisol levels in preschool children predicted the expression of ADHD.39
This could possibly be the result of a long-term stress reaction. The third phase of stress development (resistance phase) is typically characterized by a collapse of basal cortisol levels. The fourth phase (exhaustion phase) is then characterized by a breakdown of the neurotransmitter systems. More on this at ⇒ Resistance phase In the section ⇒ The stress response chain / stress phases of the article ⇒ The human stress system - the basics of stress.

However, changes in basal cortisol levels are not specific to ADHD and are therefore barely useful for ADHD diagnosis.

4.1.2. Measurement of the phasic cortisol response to psychological stressors

The phasic cortisol response can be used to determine the cortisolergic subtype of ADHD.

ADHD-I is typically associated with an elevated cortisol response compared to unaffected individuals, ADHD-HI with a flattened cortisol response compared to unaffected individuals.

The differences are relevant for treatment. In people with ADHD-I, SSRIs should be used with caution. In ADHD-HI, low-dose SSRIs (2 to 4 mg, i.e. 1/5 to 1/10 of the level used in depression) could potentially improve impulsivity, allowing lower dosing with stimulants.

The Trier Stress Test (TSST) is typically used as a psychological stressor.
This is probably not suitable for a (even annually) repeated examination in view of the expected habituation.

4.2. Dexamethasone/ACTH/CRH test?

A dexamethasone/ACTH/CRH test can be used to determine whether there is a permanent dysregulation at individual levels of the HPA axis.

If ADHD is characterized by a permanent dysregulation of the stress regulation systems, above all the HPA axis, it should be possible to prove the individual dysregulation by testing the HPA axis reactions (changes in the levels of the stress hormones CRH, ACTH, cortisol to acute stressors). At the very least, such tests should provide informative evidence for the individual differentiation of subtypes.

Dexamethasone is a glucocorticoid that selectively binds to the glucocorticoid receptors and should thereby trigger the downregulation of the HPA axis (after a stress reaction has occurred). If this downregulation does not occur, this is a strong indication of a disorder in the shutdown of the HPA axis.

More on this at ⇒ Pharmacological endocrine function tests.

4.3. Mineral analysis

By analyzing zinc, lead, copper, cobalt and vanadium from teeth, one study was able to create an impressively clear distinction between non-affected people, people with ADHD, people with ASD and people with comorbidities.40

4.4. Axonal damage to the white matter

A study of 50 untreated persons with ADHD compared to their unaffected twins and 50 control subjects found higher axonal diffusivity in the ADHD sufferers in the41

  • Perpendicular fasciculus
  • Superior longitudinal fasciculus I
  • Lateral corticospinal tract
  • Corpus callosum

The values correlated significantly (except in the perpendicular fasciculus) with ADHD symptoms such as inattention and working memory problems and were intermediate between those of people with ADHD and non-affected twins. Axial diffusivity is a marker for the undamaged condition of axons.

4.5. 24-Hour movement profiles

One study claims to have achieved a diagnostic accuracy for ADHD-C of over 97% by evaluating neural network analyses of 24-hour movement profiles.4243

4.6. Facial features

4.6.1. Facial morphology in ADHD

One study concluded that there may be a close relationship between ADHD and nasal width, ear length and upper face depth, which could be related to genetic signaling processes and a close relationship between the brain and face formation process in the embryonic period.44

4.6.2. Facial morphology in ASD

A study reports on subtle phenotypic facial morphologies in ASD.45

4.7. Analysis of MRI brain images

Optimized machine learning was able to distinguish very well between ADHD and controls and between persistent and remitting ADHD in young adults using MRI neuroimaging. Relevant features of ADHD compared to controls were identified as:46

  • Nodal efficiency in the right inferior frontal gyrus
  • Functional connectivity between brain regions right medial frontal and inferior parietal
  • Volume of the right amygdala

The remission of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity correlated with

  • Higher nodal efficiency right medial frontal
  • Reduced functional connectivity between right medial frontal and inferior parietal brain areas

4.8. Analysis of urine values (-)

A functional analysis of urine values for the diagnosis of ADHD has not yet been reported. One study also found no connection between urine values and ADHD in dogs.47

4.9. Analysis of eye values

4.9.1. Electroretinography (ERG)

One study found evidence of gender-specific biomarkers in electroretinography in ADHD.48

4.9.2. Pupillometry

Pupil diameters at rest are a biomarker for tonic noradrenal infiring. Pupil changes during tasks and in response to stimuli are a biomarker for phasic noradrenal infiring. Find out more at* Tonic and phasic noradrenaline* in the article Noradrenaline in the chapter Neurological aspects of ADHD.
One study achieved a sensitivity of 77.3% and a specificity of 75.3% in the diagnosis of ADHD compared to a healthy control group using a machine learning method from pupil measurements.49

Several studies found no evidence for the sometimes reported correlation between pupil diameter and fluid intelligence.5051

4.9.3. Eye tracker: duration of target fixation (?), duration of gaze on irrelevant areas

The study of distractibility by recording and analyzing eye movements during a task-irrelevant distraction in children and adolescents aged 6 to 17 years showed a significant (negative) correlation between a (reduced) duration of target fixation and (increased) attention problems reported by parents (p < 0.001).52 However, 5-month-old children who were later diagnosed with ADHD showed a positive correlation of prolonged gaze fixations during an attention task (21.2 seconds) compared to the 5-month-old children who later did not show ADHD (12.7 seconds). As only the group values were so clear, diagnostic use was not possible.15

Two studies report extended gaze times to irrelevant areas during a continuous performance task, which could have diagnostic value as additional information 5354

4.10. Group comparison measurement of activity synchronization and activity volume

A very exciting study reports a highly significant measurement of inattention and hyperactivity in a school class (n = 39) using actigraphs (accelerometers) over 3 weeks.55
The measurement of activity synchrony found a negative correlation between synchrony of movements and inattention, but not hyperactivity (in the teacher’s report).
The measurement of activity volume correlated with hyperactivity (in the parent report), but not with inattention.

Other small studies dealt with the diagnosis of hyperactivity using a smart watch with a special app56, actigraph measurements for ADHD diagnostics5758 , differential diagnostics for Bipolar Disorder59, the detection of aggression in ADHD60

  1. Parlatini V, Bellato A, Gabellone A, Margari L, Marzulli L, Matera E, Petruzzelli MG, Solmi M, Correll CU, Cortese S (2024): A state-of-the-art overview of candidate diagnostic biomarkers for Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2024 Mar 26:1-13. doi: 10.1080/14737159.2024.2333277. PMID: 38506617. REVIEW ↥

  2. Attallah O (2024): ADHD-AID: Aiding Tool for Detecting Children’s Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder via EEG-Based Multi-Resolution Analysis and Feature Selection. Biomimetics (Basel). 2024 Mar 20;9(3):188. doi: 10.3390/biomimetics9030188. PMID: 38534873; PMCID: PMC10968027. n = 121 ↥

  3. He Y, Wang X, Yang Z, Xue L, Chen Y, Ji J, Wan F, Mukhopadhyay SC, Men L, Tong CFM, Li G, Chen S (2023): Classification of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder based on EEG signals using a EEG-Transformer model. J Neural Eng. 2023 Sep 8. doi: 10.1088/1741-2552/acf7f5. PMID: 37683665. ↥

  4. Chugh N, Aggarwal S, Balyan A (2023): The Hybrid Deep Learning Model for Identification of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Using EEG. Clin EEG Neurosci. 2023 Sep 8:15500594231193511. doi: 10.1177/15500594231193511. PMID: 37682533. ↥

  5. Abedinzadeh Torghabeh F, Hosseini SA, Modaresnia Y (2023): Potential biomarker for early detection of ADHD using phase-based brain connectivity and graph theory. Phys Eng Sci Med. 2023 Sep 5. doi: 10.1007/s13246-023-01310-y. PMID: 37668834. ↥

  6. Monastra, Lubar, Linden (2001): The development of a quantitative electroencephalographic scanning process for attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder: reliability and validity studies; Neuropsychology. 2001 Jan;15(1):136-44. n = 469, 6 bis 20 Jahre ↥

  7. Zitiert nach Strehl (Hrsg.) (2013) Neurofeedback, Kohlhammer ↥

  8. Kiiski, Bennett, Rueda-Delgado, Farina, Knight, Boyle, Roddy, Grogan, Bramham, Kelly, Whelan (2019): EEG spectral power, but not theta/beta ratio, is a neuromarker for adult ADHD. Eur J Neurosci. 2019 Dec 13. doi: 10.1111/ejn.14645. ↥

  9. Boutros, Fraenkel, Feingold (2015): A Four-Step Approach for Developing Diagnostic Tests in Psychiatry: EEG in ADHD as a Test Case; The Journal of Neuropsychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences; Volume 17, Issue 4, November 2005, pp. 455-464 ↥

  10. Markovska-Simoska, Pop-Jordanova (2017): Quantitative EEG in Children and Adults With Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Comparison of Absolute and Relative Power Spectra and Theta/Beta Ratio. Clin EEG Neurosci. 2017 Jan;48(1):20-32. N = 60 ↥

  11. Lauth, Minsel (2009): ADHS bei Erwachsenen: Diagnostik und Behandlung von Aufmerksamkeits-/Hyperaktivitätsstörungen; Hogrefe, Seite 28 ↥

  12. Arns, Conners, Kraemer (2013): A Decade of EEG Theta/Beta Ratio Research in ADHD: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Attention Disorders, 17(5), 374–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054712460087 ↥ ↥

  13. Kerson, deBeus, Lightstone, Arnold, Barterian, Pan, Monastra (2019): EEG Theta/Beta Ratio Calculations Differ Between Various EEG Neurofeedback and Assessment Software Packages: Clinical Interpretation. Clin EEG Neurosci. 2019 Dec 17:1550059419888320. doi: 10.1177/1550059419888320. ↥

  14. Picken, Clarke, Barry, McCarthy, Selikowitz (2019): The Theta/Beta Ratio as an Index of Cognitive Processing in Adults With the Combined Type of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Clin EEG Neurosci. 2019 Dec 26:1550059419895142. doi: 10.1177/1550059419895142. ↥

  15. Eng CM, Patton LA, Bell MA (2025): Infant attention and frontal EEG neuromarkers of childhood ADHD. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2025 Apr;72:101524. doi: 10.1016/j.dcn.2025.101524. PMID: 39978291; PMCID: PMC11889623. ↥ ↥

  16. Pertermann, Bluschke, Roessner, Beste (2019): The Modulation of Neural Noise Underlies the Effectiveness of Methylphenidate Treatment in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging. 2019 Aug;4(8):743-750. doi: 10.1016/j.bpsc.2019.03.011. ↥

  17. Robertson, Furlong, Voytek, Donoghue, Boettiger, Sheridan (2019): EEG Power Spectral Slope differs by ADHD status and stimulant medication exposure in early childhood. J Neurophysiol. 2019 Oct 16. doi: 10.1152/jn.00388.2019. ↥

  18. Müller, Kandrian, Kropotov (2011): ADHS – Neurodiagnostik in der Praxis, Springer, Seite 194 ff ↥

  19. Ghasemi E, Ebrahimi M, Ebrahimie E (2022): Machine learning models effectively distinguish attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder using event-related potentials. Cogn Neurodyn. 2022 Dec;16(6):1335-1349. doi: 10.1007/s11571-021-09746-2. PMID: 36408064; PMCID: PMC9666608. ↥

  20. Spencer, Faraone, Surman, Petty, Clarke, Batchelder, Wozniak, Biederman: Towards Defining Deficient Emotional Self Regulation in Youth with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Using the Child Behavior Check List: A Controlled Study, Postgrad Med. 2011 Sep; 123(5): 50–59., ↥

  21. Lau-Zhu, Tye, Rijsdijk, McLoughlin (2019): No evidence of associations between ADHD and event-related brain potentials from a continuous performance task in a population-based sample of adolescent twins. PLoS One. 2019 Oct 4;14(10):e0223460. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223460. eCollection 2019. n = 134 ↥

  22. Kaiser, Aggensteiner, Baumeister, Holz, Banaschewski, Brandeis (2020): Earlier versus later cognitive event-related potentials (ERPs) in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): A meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2020 Jan 25;S0149-7634(19)30508-1. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.01.019. PMID: 31991190. n = 3.370 ↥

  23. Häger, Øgrim, Danielsen, Billstedt, Gillberg, Åsberg Johnels (2020): Indexing Executive Functions with Test Scores, Parent Ratings and ERPs: How Do the Measures Relate in Children versus Adolescents with ADHD? Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2020 Feb 17;16:465-477. doi: 10.2147/NDT.S230163. PMID: 32110021; PMCID: PMC7034965. n = 59 ↥

  24. Science Direct: MIsmatch negativity ↥

  25. Moradkhani S, Sanglakh Ghoochan Atigh A, Alizade Zarei M, Wallois F, Nazari MA (2024): Toward an endophenotype for ADHD: Exploring the duration mismatch negativity in drug-free children with ADHD. Appl Neuropsychol Child. 2024 Jul 31:1-11. doi: 10.1080/21622965.2024.2384946. PMID: 39082960. ↥

  26. Chen, Chen, Song, Sun, Li (2019): EEG characteristics of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Neuroscience. 2019 Mar 26;406:444-456. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2019.03.048. ↥

  27. Boroujeni, Rastegari, Khodadadi (2019): Diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder using non-linear analysis of the EEG signal. IET Syst Biol. 2019 Oct;13(5):260-266. doi: 10.1049/iet-syb.2018.5130. ↥

  28. Kaur, Singh, Arun, Kaur, Bajaj (2019): Phase Space Reconstruction of EEG Signals for Classification of ADHD and Control Adults. Clin EEG Neurosci. 2019 Sep 19:1550059419876525. doi: 10.1177/1550059419876525. ↥

  29. Tombor, Kakuszi, Papp, Réthelyi, Bitter, Czobor (2021): Atypical resting-state gamma band trajectory in adult attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Neural Transm (Vienna). 2021 Jun 23. doi: 10.1007/s00702-021-02368-2. PMID: 34164742. n = 101 ↥

  30. Tanko, Barua, Dogan, Tuncer, Palmer, Ciaccio, Acharya (2022): EPSPatNet86: eight-pointed star pattern learning network for detection ADHD disorder using EEG signals. Physiol Meas. 2022 Apr 4;43(3). doi: 10.1088/1361-6579/ac59dc. PMID: 35377344. ↥

  31. Khare SK, Acharya UR (2023): An explainable and interpretable model for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children using EEG signals. Comput Biol Med. 2023 Mar;155:106676. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.106676. PMID: 36827785. ↥

  32. Hernández RM, Ponce-Meza JC, Saavedra-López MÁ, Campos Ugaz WA, Chanduvi RM, Monteza WC (2023): Brain Complexity and Psychiatric Disorders. Iran J Psychiatry. 2023 Oct;18(4):493-502. doi: 10.18502/ijps.v18i4.13637. PMID: 37881422; PMCID: PMC10593988. REVIEW ↥

  33. Ortuño-Miró S, Molina-Rodríguez S, Belmonte C, Ibañez-Ballesteros J (2023): Identifying ADHD boys by very-low frequency prefrontal fNIRS fluctuations during a rhythmic mental arithmetic task. J Neural Eng. 2023 May 23;20(3). doi: 10.1088/1741-2552/acad2b. PMID: 37218310. n = 30 ↥

  34. Wiebe A, Aslan B, Brockmann C, Lepartz A, Dudek D, Kannen K, Selaskowski B, Lux S, Ettinger U, Philipsen A, Braun N (2023): Multimodal assessment of adult attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A controlled virtual seminar room study. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2023 May 20. doi: 10.1002/cpp.2863. PMID: 37209018. n = 75 ↥

  35. Baccarin, Picinelli, Tomaiuolo, Castronovo, Costa, Verdecchia, Cannizzaro, Barbieri, Sacco, Persico, Lintas (2020): Appropriateness of array-CGH in the ADHD clinics: A comparative study. Genes Brain Behav. 2020 Jul;19(6):e12651. doi: 10.1111/gbb.12651. PMID: 32141190. ↥

  36. Honorato-Mauer J, Xavier G, Ota VK, Chehimi SN, Mafra F, Cuóco C, Ito LT, Ormond R, Asprino PF, Oliveira A, Bugiga AVG, Torrecilhas AC, Bressan R, Manfro GG, Miguel EC, Rohde LA, Pan PM, Salum GA, Pellegrino R, Belangero S, Santoro ML (2023): Alterations in microRNA of extracellular vesicles associated with major depression, attention-deficit/hyperactivity and anxiety disorders in adolescents. Transl Psychiatry. 2023 Feb 6;13(1):47. doi: 10.1038/s41398-023-02326-4. PMID: 36746925. ↥

  37. Wu J, Li P, Luo H, Lu Y (2025): Therapeutic and Diagnostic Potential of MicroRNAs in Children with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2025 Feb 6. doi: 10.1620/tjem.2025.J012. PMID: 39909427. REVIEW ↥

  38. Bieger (2011): Neurostressguide ↥

  39. Pauli-Pott, Schloß, Skoluda, Nater, Becker (2019): Low hair cortisol concentration predicts the development of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2019 Sep 12;110:104442. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2019.104442. ↥

  40. Austin, Curtin, Curtin, Gennings, Arora, Tammimies, Isaksson, Willfors, Bölte (2019): Dynamical properties of elemental metabolism distinguish attention deficit hyperactivity disorder from autism spectrum disorder. Transl Psychiatry. 2019 Sep 25;9(1):238. doi: 10.1038/s41398-019-0567-6. ↥

  41. Chiang, Hsu, Shang, Tseng, Gau (2019): White matter endophenotype candidates for ADHD: a diffusion imaging tractography study with sibling design. Psychol Med. 2019 May 22:1-11. doi: 10.1017/S0033291719001120. ↥

  42. Amado-Caballero, Casaseca-de-la-Higuera, Alberola-Lopez, Andres-de-Llano, Lopez-Villalobos, Garmendia-Leiza, Alberola-Lopez (2020): Objective ADHD diagnosis using Convolutional Neural Networks over Daily-Life Activity Records. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2020 Jan 6. doi: 10.1109/JBHI.2020.2964072. ↥

  43. Amado-Caballero P, Casaseca-de-la-Higuera P, Alberola-López S, Andrés-de-Llano JM, López-Villalobos JA, Alberola-López C (2023): Insight into ADHD diagnosis with deep learning on Actimetry: Quantitative interpretation of occlusion maps in age and gender subgroups. Artif Intell Med. 2023 Sep;143:102630. doi: 10.1016/j.artmed.2023.102630. PMID: 37673587. ↥

  44. Aktas, Esin, Dursun (2020): Is it possible to recognize children diagnosed with ADHD from their facial anthropometric measures? A case-control study. Med Hypotheses. 2020 Feb 26;140:109649. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2020.109649. PMID: 32135446. n = 80 ↥

  45. Aldridge K, George ID, Cole KK, Austin JR, Takahashi TN, Duan Y, Miles JH (2011): Facial phenotypes in subgroups of prepubertal boys with autism spectrum disorders are correlated with clinical phenotypes. Mol Autism. 2011 Oct 14;2(1):15. doi: 10.1186/2040-2392-2-15. PMID: 21999758; PMCID: PMC3212884. ↥

  46. Luo, Alvarez, Halperin, Li (2020): Multimodal neuroimaging-based prediction of adult outcomes in childhood-onset ADHD using ensemble learning techniques. Neuroimage Clin. 2020;26:102238. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2020.102238. PMID: 32182578; PMCID: PMC7076568. n = 72 ↥

  47. Schmidt T, Meller S, Talbot SR, Packer RMA, Volk HA (2023): Urinary neurotransmitter analysis and canine behavior assessment. Front Vet Sci. 2023 Feb 6;10:1124231. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1124231. PMID: 36814465; PMCID: PMC9939829. ↥

  48. Dubois MA, Pelletier CA, Mérette C, Jomphe V, Turgeon R, Bélanger RE, Grondin S, Hébert M (2023): Evaluation of electroretinography (ERG) parameters as a biomarker for ADHD. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2023 Jun 7;127:110807. doi: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2023.110807. PMID: 37290571. n = 51 ↥

  49. Das W, Khanna S (2021): A Robust Machine Learning Based Framework for the Automated Detection of ADHD Using Pupillometric Biomarkers and Time Series Analysis. Sci Rep. 2021 Aug 12;11(1):16370. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-95673-5. PMID: 34385511; PMCID: PMC8361128. ↥

  50. Robison MK, Coyne JT, Sibley C, Brown NL, Neilson B, Foroughi C (2022): An examination of relations between baseline pupil measures and cognitive abilities. Psychophysiology. 2022 Dec;59(12):e14124. doi: 10.1111/psyp.14124. PMID: 35711148. n = 845 ↥

  51. Lorente P, Ruuskanen V, Mathôt S, Crespo A, Radl J (2025): No evidence for association between pupil size and fluid intelligence among either children or adults. Psychon Bull Rev. 2025 Feb 26. doi: 10.3758/s13423-025-02644-2. PMID: 40011399. ↥

  52. Sweere DJJ, Pel JJM, Kooiker MJG, van Dijk JP, van Gemert EJJM, Hurks PPM, Klinkenberg S, Vermeulen RJ, Hendriksen JGM (2022): Clinical Utility of Eye Tracking in Assessing Distractibility in Children with Neurological Disorders or ADHD: A Cross-Sectional Study. Brain Sci. 2022 Oct 9;12(10):1369. doi: 10.3390/brainsci12101369. PMID: 36291303; PMCID: PMC9599566. ↥

  53. Elbaum T, Braw Y, Lev A (2020): Rassovsky Y. Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): Integrating the MOXO-dCPT with an Eye Tracker Enhances Diagnostic Precision. Sensors (Basel). 2020 Nov 9;20(21):6386. doi: 10.3390/s20216386. PMID: 33182303; PMCID: PMC7664925. ↥

  54. Lev A, Braw Y, Elbaum T, Wagner M, Rassovsky Y (2020): Eye Tracking During a Continuous Performance Test: Utility for Assessing ADHD Patients. J Atten Disord. 2022 Jan;26(2):245-255. doi: 10.1177/1087054720972786. PMID: 33238787. ↥

  55. Feng X, Li R, Wang P (2025): Behavior as a window to the mind - objective daily life assessment of attention and hyperactivity/impulsivity. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2025 Feb 7. doi: 10.1007/s00787-025-02653-5. PMID: 39918601. ↥

  56. Lindhiem O, Goel M, Shaaban S, Mak KJ, Chikersal P, Feldman J, Harris JL (2022): Objective Measurement of Hyperactivity Using Mobile Sensing and Machine Learning: Pilot Study. JMIR Form Res. 2022 Apr 25;6(4):e35803. doi: 10.2196/35803. PMID: 35468089; PMCID: PMC9086887. n = 30 ↥

  57. Ji Y, Zhang-Lea J, Tran J (2025): Automated ADHD detection using dual-modal sensory data and machine learning. Med Eng Phys. 2025 May;139:104328. doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2025.104328. PMID: 40306880. ↥

  58. Muñoz-Organero M, Powell L, Heller B, Harpin V, Parker J (2019): Using Recurrent Neural Networks to Compare Movement Patterns in ADHD and Normally Developing Children Based on Acceleration Signals from the Wrist and Ankle. Sensors (Basel). 2019 Jul 3;19(13):2935. doi: 10.3390/s19132935. PMID: 31277297; PMCID: PMC6651483. ↥

  59. Faedda GL, Ohashi K, Hernandez M, McGreenery CE, Grant MC, Baroni A, Polcari A, Teicher MH (2016): Actigraph measures discriminate pediatric bipolar disorder from attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and typically developing controls. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2016 Jun;57(6):706-16. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12520. PMID: 26799153; PMCID: PMC4873411. n = 155 ↥

  60. Park C, Rouzi MD, Atique MMU, Finco MG, Mishra RK, Barba-Villalobos G, Crossman E, Amushie C, Nguyen J, Calarge C, Najafi B (2023): Machine Learning-Based Aggression Detection in Children with ADHD Using Sensor-Based Physical Activity Monitoring. Sensors (Basel). 2023 May 21;23(10):4949. doi: 10.3390/s23104949. PMID: 37430862; PMCID: PMC10221870. n = 39 ↥

Diese Seite wurde am 16.05.2025 zuletzt aktualisiert.
Previous page Next page