Search Abstracts | Symposia | Slide Sessions | Poster Sessions
ERP P300 as an Indicator of Phonological Working Memory Abilities: A Study of Neurotypical and ADHD Children
Poster Session A, Friday, September 12, 11:00 am - 12:30 pm, Field House
Vanessa Harwood1, Alisa Baron1, Tiffany Ung1, Alex Seng1, Abbie Levinson1, Janis Gaudreau1, Michelle Lim1, Nicole Logan1; 1University of Rhode Island
Phonological working memory (PWM)—the temporary storage and manipulation of phonological information—is a critical component of reading acquisition (Baddeley, 2003). The P300 event-related potential (ERP) has been identified as a neural index of PWM (Bonala & Jensen, 2012; Harwood et al., 2021). This preliminary study examines the P300 ERP as a measure of PWM and its association with reading behaviors in children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and neurotypical (NT) controls. Prior research indicates that children with ADHD experience specific PWM deficits (Raiker et al., 2019; Roberts et al., 2023), potentially impacting language and literacy development. Investigating the neural mechanisms underlying PWM may help reveal nuanced differences in reading profiles among children with ADHD. Methods: A cross-sectional sample of children with ADHD (N=13; F=7; M Age = 9.88 ± 2.69) and NT controls (N=13; F=3; M_Age = 10.9 ± 3.39) completed the Woodcock-Johnson IV Test of Achievement (WJ IV) and an ERP task. Groups were age-matched and classified based on clinical diagnosis. The ERP task utilized a classic auditory oddball paradigm presenting semi-synthesized English phoneme contrasts (/pa/ standard, 255 trials; /ba/ deviant, 45 trials). Children responded via button press to standard and deviant stimuli. The P300 component was identified across a cluster of 10 central-parietal electrodes, with mean amplitude and peak latency extracted between 300–700 ms. Independent samples t-tests examined group differences, paired t-tests compared standard and deviant trials within groups, and Spearman’s rho correlations explored associations between ERP and reading measures. Results: No significant group differences were found for deviant mean amplitude (ADHD: 0.76 µV ± 5.18; NT: 2.18 µV ± 1.75; t(24) = 0.94, p = .36) or deviant latency (ADHD: 487 ms ± 130.9; NT: 526 ms ± 75.6; t(23) = 0.91, p = .37). Paired t-tests revealed no significant amplitude or latency differences between standard and deviant trials for the ADHD group. In contrast, NT children showed a significantly greater amplitude for deviant (2.18 µV + 1.75) versus standard trials (.41µV+ 1.93; t(12) = -3.81, p = .002), suggesting a robust P300 response. No significant latency difference emerged for NT children. Correlational analyses indicated that greater P300 deviant amplitude was associated with higher Sentence Reading Fluency scores on the WJ IV for NT children (Rs(11) = .92, p < .001), but not for children with ADHD (Rs(9) = -.51, p = .11). Conclusions: Preliminary findings suggest that NT children exhibit stronger neural responses to phonological deviant stimuli during PWM tasks, as indexed by the P300 component, compared to children with ADHD. Moreover, the association between P300 amplitude and reading fluency in NT children—but not in those with ADHD—points to potential differences in how PWM processes contribute to literacy development across groups.
Topic Areas: Speech Perception,