Table 3.
Comparisons between and within groups on ERSP measures during task conditions (Analysis 1).
| Between-group comparisons | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ADHD vs Control | ADHD vs Control (covarying MW) | ||||
| MWT | d | p | d | p | |
| Alpha ERSP | 1back | 0.02 | 0.930 | 0.03 | 0.904 |
| 0–500 ms | 0back | 0.59 | 0.038‡ | 0.14 | 0.606 |
| Alpha ERSP | 1back | 0.80 | 0.012* | 0.33 | 0.227 |
| 500–1000 ms | 0back | 0.70 | 0.021‡ | 0.09 | 0.719 |
| Beta ERSP | 1back | 0.55 | 0.046‡ | 0.24 | 0.359 |
| 0–1000 ms | 0back | 0.71 | 0.014* | 0.43 | 0.096 |
| Theta ERSP | 1back | 1.11 | 0.001* | 0.61 | 0.024‡ |
| 0–500 ms | 0back | 0.82 | 0.005* | 0.48 | 0.072 |
| Theta ITC | 1back | 1.30 | 0.001* | 0.60 | 0.024‡ |
| 0–500 ms | 0back | 1.00 | 0.002* | 0.72 | 0.007* |
| SAT | d | p | d | p | |
| Alpha ERSP | 1 s | 0.60 | 0.036‡ | 0.62 | 0.034‡ |
| 0–500 ms | 2 s | 0.29 | 0.325 | 0.27 | 0.279 |
| 5 s | 0.18 | 0.539 | 0.23 | 0.392 | |
| 8 s | 0.20 | 0.511 | 0.22 | 0.343 | |
| Alpha ERSP | 1 s | 0.83 | 0.007* | 0.72 | 0.010* |
| 500–1000 ms | 2 s | 0.79 | 0.012* | 0.49 | 0.051 |
| 5 s | 0.73 | 0.014* | 0.53 | 0.041‡ | |
| 8 s | 0.60 | 0.032‡ | 0.42 | 0.093 | |
| Beta ERSP | 2 s | 0.49 | 0.097 | 0.70 | 0.016‡ |
| 750–1500 ms | 5 s | 0.56 | 0.054 | 0.55 | 0.068 |
| 8 s | 0.71 | 0.020‡ | 0.60 | 0.033‡ | |
| Theta ERSP | 1 s | 0.81 | 0.006* | 0.49 | 0.145 |
| 0–500 ms | 2 s | 0.32 | 0.267 | 0.21 | 0.422 |
| 5 s | 0.49 | 0.091 | 0.41 | 0.097 | |
| 8 s | 0.33 | 0.259 | 0.05 | 0.929 | |
| Within-group comparisons | |||||||||
| ADHD | ADHD (covarying MW) | Controls | Controls (covarying MW) | ||||||
| MWT | d | p | d | p | d | p | d | p | |
| Alpha ERSP 0–500 ms | 1back vs 0back | 0.12 | 0.575 | 0.11 | 0.590 | 0.31 | 0.156 | 0.27 | 0.223 |
| Alpha ERSP 500–1000 ms | 1back vs 0back | 0.60 | 0.012‡ | 0.59 | 0.013‡ | 0.82 | 0.001* | 0.73 | 0.003* |
| Beta ERSP | 1back vs 0back | 0.80 | 0.001* | 0.80 | 0.001* | 0.90 | 0.001* | 0.84 | 0.001* |
| Theta ERSP | 1back vs 0back | 0.73 | 0.003* | 0.80 | 0.002* | 1.71 | 0.001* | 1.58 | 0.001* |
| Theta ITC | 1back vs 0back | 1.18 | 0.001* | 1.58 | 0.001* | 1.70 | 0.001* | 1.91 | 0.001* |
| SAT | d | p | d | p | d | p | d | p | |
| Alpha ERSP | 2 s vs 5 s | 0.49 | 0.035‡ | 0.61 | 0.025‡ | 0.25 | 0.225 | 0.31 | 0.134 |
| 0–500 ms | 2 s vs 8 s | 0.70 | 0.003* | 0.78 | 0.002* | 0.27 | 0.174 | 0.29 | 0.143 |
| 5 s vs 8 s | 0.02 | 0.925 | 0.02 | 0.928 | 0.04 | 0.828 | 0.04 | 0.837 | |
| Alpha ERSP | 2 s vs 5 s | 0.12 | 0.582 | 0.13 | 0.541 | 0.09 | 0.628 | 0.13 | 0.520 |
| 500–1000 ms | 2 s vs 8 s | 0.11 | 0.603 | 0.08 | 0.717 | 0.06 | 0.773 | 0.07 | 0.705 |
| 5 s vs 8 s | 0.01 | 0.962 | 0.07 | 0.745 | 0.01 | 0.975 | 0.01 | 0.992 | |
| Beta ERSP | 2 s vs 5 s | 0.03 | 0.893 | 0.09 | 0.688 | 0.08 | 0.684 | 0.05 | 0.801 |
| 750–1500 ms | 2 s vs 8 s | 0.13 | 0.541 | 0.16 | 0.471 | 0.23 | 0.285 | 0.16 | 0.450 |
| 5 s vs 8 s | 0.20 | 0.353 | 0.10 | 0.626 | 0.15 | 0.469 | 0.12 | 0.564 | |
| Theta ERSP | 2 s vs 5 s | 0.05 | 0.816 | 0.03 | 0.885 | 0.15 | 0.436 | 0.23 | 0.246 |
| 2 s vs 8 s | 0.42 | 0.052 | 0.42 | 0.054 | 0.46 | 0.029‡ | 0.47 | 0.026‡ | |
| 5 s vs 8 s | 0.36 | 0.095 | 0.33 | 0.122 | 0.48 | 0.024‡ | 0.42 | 0.051 | |
Abbbreviations: MWT- Mind Wandering task, SAT- Sustained Attention Task, MW – Mind Wandering.
Notes: *FDR correction significant at p ≤ 0.014, ‡trend-level effects at p ≤ 0.05. Bold: d≥0.80 indicating large effect size, Italics: d≥0.50 indicating a medium effect size. Only variables that showed significant effects in Table 2 were followed up in the post-hoc analysis testing between- and within-group effects.