Next Article in Journal
Insomnia and Cognitive Functions: Focus on Neurobiological Mechanisms
Previous Article in Journal
Waiting Anxiety: A Phenomenological Account of Anticipatory Anxiety During Rationally Certain and Pleasant Outcome Waiting
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Psychiatry International
Volume 7
Issue 2
10.3390/psychiatryint7020069
psychiatryint-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Do Inhibitory Deficits in ADHD Reflect Both Controlled and Automatic Mechanisms?

by
Tindara Caprì
1,* and
Rosa Angela Fabio
2
1
Department of Human Sciences, Link Campus University, Via del Casale di S. Pio V, 44, 00165 Rome, Italy
2
Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphofunctional Imaging, A.O.U. Policlinico Universitario “G. Martino”, Via Consolare Valeria, 1, 98125 Messina, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Psychiatry Int. 2026, 7(2), 69; https://doi.org/10.3390/psychiatryint7020069
Submission received: 29 January 2026 / Revised: 12 February 2026 / Accepted: 24 March 2026 / Published: 1 April 2026
Versions Notes

Abstract

Background: The present study investigated automatic and intentional inhibitory control processes in children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) within the framework of the dual-process theory, comparing their performance with that of typically developing children in ocular motor tasks. The aim was to determine whether deficits in ADHD involve both controlled and automatic inhibitory mechanisms. Methods: 104 children (M = 10.92, SD = 1.97) divided into three groups (ADHD-Inattentive, ADHD-Combined, and control) were tested using the Delayed Ocular Response (DOR) task, which measures intentional inhibitory control by requiring the suppression of reflexive saccades toward peripheral stimuli, and the Saccadic Interference (SI) task, which evaluates automatic inhibitory control by assessing susceptibility to distractor interference during goal-directed saccades. Results: In the DOR task, ADHD groups exhibited a higher number of premature saccades, fewer correct saccades, and lower accuracy compared to controls, with no differences between ADHD subtypes, indicating an impairment in intentional inhibitory control. Performance on the SI task did not differ significantly among groups, suggesting preserved automatic inhibitory control in children with ADHD. Conclusions: These findings indicate that ADHD is characterized by deficits in intentional inhibitory processes rather than in automatic inhibitory mechanisms, contributing to a more differentiated understanding of inhibitory control dysfunctions in this disorder.

1. Introduction

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) can be defined as a neurodevelopmental condition marked by persistent and pervasive patterns of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsive behaviour. It is classified into three primary subtypes according to the dominant symptoms: Predominantly inattentive (ADHD-I), predominantly hyperactive-impulsive (ADHD-H), and combined presentation (ADHD-C). ADHD is quite common, with an estimated worldwide prevalence of about 5% among children.
Numerous studies on ADHD highlighted the correlation between the core symptoms of the disorder and deficits in executive functioning, which manifest as difficulties in planning, organizing, and managing complex tasks [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Recently, some research found significant deficits in automatic processing in subjects with ADHD, indicating that this disorder may also be characterized by selective dysfunctions in automatic information processing [7,8,9].
According to the dual-process theory [10,11], human cognition consists of two distinct types of processes: Type 1 characterized by automatic process and Type 2, characterized by controlled processes. Automatic processes are rapid, effortless, and operate unconsciously, allowing for the simultaneous execution of multiple tasks without interference [12]. Controlled processes are slower, require more effort, and are employed for tasks that demand flexibility and adaptability to new situations [13]. Within the context of visual attention allocation, automatic and controlled processes correspond to bottom-up and top-down models [14]. In the bottom-up model, attention is involuntarily captured by external stimuli that are salient or sudden, with fewer cognitive interferences due to the guidance of the visual characteristics of the stimuli themselves. Conversely, in the top-down model, attention is voluntarily directed towards specific stimuli, guided by the individual’s goals or intentions, and is more susceptible to cognitive interferences as it requires active and conscious control [14].
These two types of processes are functionally interconnected and can operate concurrently. In the context of ADHD, impairments in controlled processes are hypothesized. Such processes are critical for the maintenance of goal-directed attention and the regulation of self-control. However, children with ADHD typically exhibit deficits in the inhibition of prepotent automatic responses, in the voluntary allocation of attentional resources, and in the sustained maintenance of attention during tasks requiring prolonged cognitive effort. Hence, automatic and controlled processes can both be crucial to explain deficits in ADHD.

1.1. Inhibitory Control in ADHD

Inhibitory control is a fundamental executive function that enables individuals to suppress irrelevant or inappropriate thoughts, actions, and impulsive responses, thereby facilitating appropriate and goal-directed behaviour [15]. This mechanism is crucial for directing attention towards relevant stimuli and filtering out visual distractions [16,17]. Studies on ADHD have highlighted that deficits in inhibitory control contribute to the symptoms of ADHD, particularly in the allocation of attentional resources [18,19]. It is necessary to distinguish between two main forms of inhibitory control: Intentional and automatic [20,21]. Intentional inhibitory control requires a conscious and voluntary engagement of cognitive resources to deliberately suppress unwanted responses. In contrast, automatic inhibitory control is a rapid and involuntary process that is triggered automatically in response to environmental stimuli. This form of inhibition allows for the instinctive suppression of immediate or overpowering responses without detailed cognitive processing.
While the literature extensively investigated intentional inhibitory control in children with ADHD [22,23,24], few studies have explored the automatic and controlled inhibitory control of visual attention. Hawk et al. [25] investigated whether ADHD was associated with reduced inhibition capacity during attended stimuli but not during ignored stimuli. Participants completed a tone discrimination task in two sessions separated by one week. During each series of 72 tones, participants were instructed to attend to one tone and ignore the other. Blink electromyography responses were recorded in response to acoustic probes presented after the onset of two-thirds of the tones and during one-third of the inter-trial intervals. Compared to controls, children with ADHD showed reduced inhibition capacity at 120 ms after the onset of carefully attended prestimuli. These findings suggested that ADHD may be associated with a specific decrease in the ability to inhibit responses to carefully attended stimuli, indicating a deficit in selective attention.
Fillmore, Milich and Lorch [26] examined inhibitory control in children with different ADHD subtypes using two distinct tasks, respectively: Countermanding task and inhibition of return (IOR) task. The first task was used to measure intentional inhibitory control, whereas the second task measured automatic inhibitory control. The stop-signal task involved participants initiating a motor response and stopping it upon presentation of a countermanding task, thereby assessing their ability to interrupt intentional actions. The inhibition of return (IOR) task, on the other hand, required participants to respond to visual stimuli appearing in different positions on the screen, measuring their reaction time when the stimulus appears in the same position as a previous stimulus versus a new position, thereby assessing their ability to automatically inhibit responses to stimuli already processed. In the countermanding task, children with ADHD required more time to intentionally inhibit responses compared to children in the control group, with no significant differences among the three subtypes of ADHD. In the IOR task, children in the combined subtype group showed a complete absence of reflexive inhibition, whereas children in the impulsive subtype group demonstrated a significant IOR effect, albeit reduced compared to the control group.
Capri, Santoddì and Fabio [1] also examined automatic and controlled attention in ADHD using the Multi-Source Interference Task (MSIT) and comparing the performance between two groups (group with ADHD vs. typically developing group). All participants had to identify the different number by pressing a button on a control keyboard, both under conditions where the target number was congruently and incongruently positioned relative to the response keyboard. Results showed significantly lower performance in the groups with ADHD compared to the control group, suggesting deficits in both automatic and controlled processing in ADHD.
A recent study by Mariani et al. [27] investigated voluntary and automatic orienting of attention in children with ADHD compared to age- and sex-matched controls. Two experiments assessed attentional orienting by recording reaction times (RTs) across different conditions: Temporal interval, spatial position, signal validity, and participant age. The results indicated that children with ADHD had overall higher RTs compared to controls. Furthermore, these children showed difficulties in reorienting attention and exhibited adequate voluntary orienting only for short temporal intervals. In the automatic task, no significant interaction between groups was detected, with both groups showing initial facilitation but not inhibition of return.
These findings highlight that children with ADHD face specific challenges in processing information and in both voluntary and automatic attentional orienting.

1.2. Current Study

The present study aimed to examine automatic and intentional inhibitory control processes in children with ADHD by comparing them with a control group of typically developing children. Specifically, the study explored the ability of these subjects to inhibit ocular movement toward an irrelevant stimulus in inhibitory control tasks, such as the Delayed Ocular Response (DOR) task and the Saccadic Interference (SI) task.
In line with the dual-process theory, in the DOR task children must inhibit a reflexive saccade towards sudden peripheral stimuli, thus testing intentional inhibitory control. In the SI task, they must suppress attention automatically captured by distractor stimuli while making saccades towards a target, reflecting automatic inhibitory control. Therefore, by comparing automatic and intentional inhibitory control processes between children with ADHD and TD children, measured through DOR and SI tasks, it was possible to test the hypothesis that both automatic and controlled deficits were key features of the disorder.
Specifically, it was hypothesized that: (a) The ADHD group exhibited a greater impairment in intentional inhibitory control in the DOR task compared to the TD control group; (b) the ADHD group showed a greater deficit in automatic inhibitory control in the SI task compared to the TD control group.
The underlying rationale of this study was that the ADHD group showed a deficit both in automatic and controlled processes, therefore the core deficits in this disorder were also related to automatic processing. From a theoretical perspective, this means that controlled processes and/or the executive functions alone cannot explain the complexity of ADHD symptoms, as suggested by new evidence [1].

2. Materials and Methods

The participants were recruited from an original sample of 435 children (204 girls and 231 boys), aged between 6 and 10 years (M = 8.98, SD = 4.01). All of them were Italian nationals and were enrolled in public primary schools in a southern area of Italy. Precisely 223 children attended primary school, and 212 children attended lower secondary school.
The teachers of all participants of the initial sample completed two standardized measures to evaluate ADHD symptomatic and Learning Disabilities (LD). These measures were the Italian version of the Deficit Attention Teacher Scale (DATS) [28] and the Disruptive Behaviour Disorder Rating Scale (DBDRS) [29].
Although DATS and DBDRS are broadly used to screen for ADHD vs. TD, they were compiled by teacher inputs, so the distinction between ADHD-I and ADHD-C was based solely on non-DSM-5 based method since it is not diagnostic, and we defined the ADHD groups as symptomatic groups.

2.1. Symptomatic Group

As written above, the initial screening for ADHD symptomatic groups was conducted using DATS. This instrument included 18 items that capture the core symptom areas of ADHD, as outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, Italian Edition Milano: Raffaello Cortina, 2013). The DATAS yields two indices: One assessing distractibility or inattention (I) and another assessing hyperactivity (H). On the basis of these scores, children can be classified as meeting criteria for the inattentive presentation (ADHD-I), the hyperactive/impulsive presentation (ADHD-H), or the combined presentation (ADHD-C).
In the present study, inclusion criteria for the ADHD symptomatic groups were obtaining cut-off scores in the DATAS and confirmation through a clinical evaluation by a clinical psychologist. Exclusion criteria were obtaining cut-off scores in the DBRS, history of neurological or psychiatric conditions, anxiety disorders, and presence of psychological diseases evaluated with the clinical interview. 52 participants were included in the final ADHD group (Table 1).

2.2. The Control Group

The control group was selected from the sample of 435 children who scored within typical scores on both the DATS and DBDRS, were not classified into any clinical category, and had not been flagged by school psychologists for behavioural, emotional, or interpersonal problems. A subset of these children was then randomly chosen. Age and gender were considered to ensure that the control group was comparable to the clinical groups in terms of male-to-female distribution and average age. Within this subset, only typically developing (TD) children who scored zero on both the DATS and DBDRS and who had no history of clinical diagnoses were included in the final TD group. Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the final sample involved in this study.

2.3. Eye-Tracking

For the detailed monitoring of participants’ visual scanning, a Tobii Series-I eye-tracker was employed. This tool records eye movements, including the position and duration of fixations, which represent moments when the gaze is focused on an object of interest, as well as saccadic movements, which are rapid shifts between fixations. During the experiment, subjects were carefully positioned at a standard distance of approximately 30 cm from the screen. The direction of their gaze was accurately determined using the corneal reflection/pupil center method, utilizing low-intensity infrared light. All data related to visual scanning were subsequently processed and analyze with the assistance of sophisticated passive gaze-tracking software, calledEyegaze Analysis System (EAS) Software (LC Technologies, Sao Paulo, Brazil). This software is not generally marketed as a single numbered version (like 1.0, 2.0) but rather through evolving product iterations, specialized application modules, and hardware integrations.

2.4. Delayed Oculomotor Response

The Delayed Oculomotor Response (DOR) task is used to measure the intentional inhibitory control of attention through the ability to voluntarily suppress the reflexive tendency to make a saccade towards a sudden visual stimulus. During each DOR trial, participants were asked to fixate on a white fixation point (+) against a black background. After a 1500 ms interval, a visual target briefly appears for 0.5 ms either to the left or right of the fixation point. The visual target can be a white circle. This stimulus is designed to typically induce a reflexive saccade. Subsequently, the fixation point remains on the screen for a random time, which can be 800, 1000, or 1200 ms. During this period, participants must maintain fixation on the fixation point and inhibit any eye movement towards the target. After the waiting interval, the fixation point disappears, and the screen remains blank for 1000 ms. Participants are required to execute a saccade as quickly as possible towards the remembered location of the target during the waiting period. The DOR task included 96 trials in total and requires about 9 min to complete. Both the fixation point and the target are horizontally centered on the screen, with four possible separations in visual angle between them (4.1°, 8.2°, 12.3°, and 16.4°). Each trial begins with the fixation point appearing in the same position as the target presented in the preceding trial.
Saccades during the task are classified based on their timing: Premature saccades if they occur after target presentation but before the end of the fixation point, and proper saccades if they occur within the 1000 ms response period. Task accuracy is assessed based on how precisely the saccade localizes the exact position of the target among the four possible visual angles and specified directions.

2.5. Saccadic Interference Task

The Saccadic Interference Task (SI) assesses the automatic control of inhibitory attention, measuring how participants filter out irrelevant stimuli while making saccades towards a target. Differential accuracy in target localization with and without a distractor stimulus indicates the magnitude of the SI effect. The premise is that the distractor stimulus interferes with saccade generation, activating automatic inhibitory processes in the superior colliculus to reduce interference. A slower or less accurate activation of this automatic inhibitory process leads to increased interference, as reflected in a stronger SI effect. The SI task included 80 trials and lasted about 6 min. Each trial began with a black fixation cross (+) displayed on a grey background. After a variable delay (500–900 ms), a target (a black circle) appeared either to the left or right of the fixation point. Both the fixation cross and the target remained on the screen for 1000 ms. Participants were instructed to maintain their gaze on the fixation point and shift their eyes toward the target as quickly as possible once it appeared. The targets were randomly presented at 5° or 10° to the left or right of the fixation point. A 1000 ms interval separated consecutive trials. During the second half of the trials, a distractor was introduced in the form of a brief (33 ms) increase in brightness, created by displaying two white bars in the upper and lower portions of the screen. The distractor stimulus appeared immediately after target presentation, with delays of 0, 50, 100, 150, or 200 ms between the distractor and the target. The difference in accuracy in target localization with and without the distractor stimulus represented the saccadic interference effect. This parameter indicated how sensitive subjects are to automatic interference presented during the task.

2.6. Procedure

The evaluations were carried out by experimental psychologists within the standard school schedule, specifically from 9:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. Participants were tested in a quiet room at the school to ensure standardized testing conditions free from external distractions. DOR and SI were performed and scored in a blinded and randomized manner.
Instructions about DOR and SI tasks were provided to ensure participants understood the nature of these tasks. After the explanation, participants were asked to describe the procedure to the experimenter to confirm their understanding, and only then did the investigation commence.

2.7. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was run with SPSS 24.0 software for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The analysis included measurement parameters such as the number of premature and correct saccades, accuracy in the DOR tasks, and accuracy in the SI task, stratified across the ADHD-I, ADHD-C, and Control groups. Descriptive statistics were computed for each parameter. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized to evaluate group differences across the measurement parameters for both tasks. Post hoc t-tests were subsequently conducted to identify significant differences between groups. The significance level (alpha) was set at 0.05 for all statistical tests.

3. Results

Table 2 shows means and standard deviations of parameters for DOR and SI tasks. With reference to the DOR task, the variable group showed significant effects, F(2,37) = 98.72, p < 0.001, indicating that, when compared to the control group, ADHD symptomatic groups showed a higher number of premature saccades.
Post hoc comparisons did not indicate any significant differences between the ADHD-I and ADHD-C subtypes, t = 0.08, p = 0.97; whereas significant differences emerged between ADHD-I and the control group, t = 22.58, p < 0.0, d = 17.29, and between ADHD-C and the control group, t = 22.50, p < 0.001, d = 15.03.
As regards the second parameter concerns the number of proper saccades, the analysis indicated significant differences between the ADHD-I and ADHD-C subtypes, when compared to the control group. These ADHD groups proved a lower number of proper saccades, F(2,37) = 41.34, p < 0.001. Post hoc comparisons indicated significant differences between ADHD-I and the control group, t = 15.13, p < 0.01, d = −11.06, as well as between ADHD-C and the control group, t = 15.00, p < 0.01, d= −9.88. However, no statistically significant differences were observed between the ADHD-I and ADHD-C subtypes, t = 0.42, p = 0.86.
Significant effects were observed for accuracy, F(2,37) = 6.87, p < 0.03. More in depth, the analysis revealed a different performance between ADHD-I and the control group, t = 12.08, p < 0.01, d = −4.39, as well as between ADHD-C and the control group, t = 13.12, p < 0.01, d = −4.16.
As regards the SI task, the saccadic interference effect did not show significant results, all groups tended to perform at a similar level, F(2,37) = 1.19, p = 0.31.

4. Discussion

The present study aimed to investigate both intentional and automatic inhibitory control processes in children with ADHD by comparing their oculomotor performance with that of TD children using the DOR and SI tasks. This study tested the hypothesis that ADHD is characterized by deficits not only in controlled, executive forms of inhibition but also in automatic inhibitory mechanisms.
Regarding intentional inhibitory control, the results obtained from the DOR task support the first hypothesis. Children with ADHD, regardless of subtype (ADHD-I and ADHD-C), exhibited a significantly higher number of premature saccades and a lower number of proper saccades compared to the control group. This pattern indicates a reduced ability to voluntarily suppress reflexive saccades toward suddenly appearing peripheral stimuli. Furthermore, accuracy was significantly lower in both ADHD groups, reinforcing the presence of a marked impairment in intentional inhibitory control. Additionally, Cohen’s d effect size was large and significant, indicating the practical, real-world relevance of these results.
These findings are consistent with previous literature demonstrating deficits in response inhibition and executive control in ADHD [30,31], and they provide further evidence that intentional inhibitory mechanisms are compromised in the disorder.
Importantly, no significant differences emerged between the ADHD-I and ADHD-C subtypes across all DOR parameters. This suggests that intentional inhibitory control deficits represent a shared core feature of ADHD, independent of symptom presentation. From a theoretical perspective, this result aligns with models proposing a common underlying neurocognitive dysfunction across ADHD subtypes, particularly in tasks requiring the active maintenance of inhibitory goals over time.
In contrast, the findings related to automatic inhibitory control, as assessed by the SI task, did not support the second hypothesis. The absence of significant group differences in sensitivity to saccadic interference indicates that ADHD groups did not differ from the control group in ability to automatically suppress attention captured by irrelevant distractors. This result suggests that automatic inhibitory processes may be relatively preserved in ADHD, at least within the context of the SI paradigm used in the present study.
Taken together, these findings partially challenge the assumption that ADHD is characterized by deficits in both automatic and controlled inhibitory processes [32,33]. While intentional inhibitory control was clearly impaired in children with ADHD, automatic inhibitory control appeared intact. This dissociation supports a more nuanced view of ADHD, in which executive and intentional control mechanisms are more vulnerable than early, stimulus-driven inhibitory processes. Consequently, these results refine the theoretical framework proposed by Caprì, Santoddì, and Fabio [1], suggesting that although ADHD cannot be fully explained by executive dysfunction alone, not all automatic processes are necessarily compromised.
However, limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings of the present study. First, the relatively small sample size may have reduced statistical power, particularly in detecting subtle differences in automatic inhibitory control or between ADHD subtypes. Second, the SI task operationalizes automatic inhibition through accuracy-based interference measures, which may not fully capture the complexity of automatic attentional suppression. Additional oculomotor parameters, such as saccadic latency or trajectory deviations, could provide a more sensitive index of automatic interference effects.
Future studies should employ larger and more heterogeneous samples to increase generalizability and to further examine potential subtype-specific patterns of inhibitory control. Longitudinal designs would be particularly valuable in clarifying how automatic and intentional inhibitory processes develop over time in children with ADHD. Additionally, integrating neurophysiological measures (e.g., EEG or eye-tracking indices of neural control) could help disentangle the neural mechanisms underlying the observed behavioural dissociation.
Further research should also consider employing a broader range of tasks to assess automatic inhibition under varying levels of perceptual and cognitive load. This approach may help determine whether automatic inhibitory control deficits emerge only under specific contextual demands.
The present findings have relevant clinical and educational implications for supporting children with ADHD in learning contexts. The clear impairment in intentional inhibitory control suggests that these children may struggle particularly with tasks requiring sustained goal maintenance, deliberate response suppression, and resistance to impulsive actions, especially in structured classroom activities. Educational interventions should therefore prioritize strategies that reduce demands on voluntary inhibition, such as providing clear and simple instructions, breaking tasks into smaller steps, and offering external supports (e.g., visual cues, reminders, and structured routines) to scaffold self-regulation. Since automatic inhibitory control appears relatively preserved, learning environments that minimize the need for continuous conscious inhibition, rather than relying solely on the child’s self-control, may be especially beneficial. Additionally, instructional approaches that incorporate frequent feedback, predictable rules, and opportunities for guided practice may help compensate for executive control difficulties.

5. Conclusions

Overall, the present findings indicate that deficits in intentional inhibitory control constitute a core feature of ADHD, independent of ADHD subtype, while automatic inhibitory processes appear to be relatively preserved, at least within the context of the SI task employed in this study. However, it is important to clarify that the results of this study reflect task differences between teacher-selected groups rather than fully conclusional between diagnosed groups. Consequently, future studies should replicate the present research using DSM-V diagnostic methods to recruit participants with ADHD and other tasks measuring automatic inhibitory processes to ensure and confirm the absence of deficits in automatic inhibitory processes in ADHD.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.C. and R.A.F.; methodology, T.C. and R.A.F.; formal analysis, T.C.; investigation, T.C.; resources, R.A.F.; data curation, T.C.; writing—original draft preparation, T.C.; writing—review and editing, T.C.; supervision, R.A.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the European Union’s EDF Programme, Project name: FARADAI, grant number: 101103386.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of Link Campus University (protocol code 1077/2025 and 16 June 2025).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from parents of all children involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data of this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to privacy reasons.

Acknowledgments

During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used Official ChatGPT from OpenAI, version GPT-4o, for English editing purposes. The authors have reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Caprì, T.; Santoddì, E.; Fabio, R.A. Multi-Source Interference Task paradigm to enhance automatic and controlled processes in ADHD. Res. Dev. Disabil. 2020, 97, 103542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  2. Peterson, B.S.; Trampush, J.; Maglione, M.; Bolshakova, M.; Rozelle, M.; Miles, J.; Pakdaman, S.; Brown, M.; Yagyu, S.; Motala, A.; et al. Treatments for ADHD in children and adolescents: A systematic review. Pediatrics 2024, 153, e2024065787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  3. American Psychiatric Association, DSM-5 Task Force. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-5™, 5th ed.; American Psychiatric Publishing: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  4. Al-Wardat, M.; Etoom, M.; Almhdawi, K.A.; Hawamdeh, Z.; Khader, Y. Prevalence of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children, adolescents and adults in the Middle East and North Africa region: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2024, 14, e078849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  5. Banaschewski, T.; Häge, A.; Hohmann, S. Perspectives on ADHD in children and adolescents as a social construct amidst rising prevalence of diagnosis and medication use. Front. Psychiatry 2024, 14, 1289157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  6. Louthrenoo, O.; Boonchooduang, N.; Likhitweerawong, N.; Charoenkwan, K.; Srisurapanont, M. The effects of neurofeedback on executive functioning in children with ADHD: A meta-analysis. J. Atten. Disord. 2022, 26, 976–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Qiu, H.; Liang, X.; Wang, P.; Zhang, H.; Shum, D.H.K. Efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions on executive functions in children and adolescents with ADHD: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J. Psychiatry 2023, 87, 103692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  8. Welsch, L.; Alliott, O.; Kelly, P.; Fawkner, S.; Booth, J.; Niven, A. The effect of physical activity interventions on executive functions in children with ADHD: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ment. Health Phys. Act. 2021, 20, 100379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  9. Fabio, R.A.; Towey, G.E.; Caprì, T. Static and dynamic assessment of intelligence in ADHD subtypes. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 846052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  10. Evans, J.S.B. Dual-process theories of reasoning: Contemporary issues and developmental applications. Dev. Rev. 2011, 31, 86–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  11. Evans, J.S.B.; Stanovich, K.E. Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2013, 8, 223–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  12. De Neys, W.; Pennycook, G. Logic, fast and slow: Advances in dual-process theorizing. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2019, 28, 503–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. Fabio, R.; Caprì, T. Advancing theorizing about fast-and-slow thinking: The interplay between fast and slow processing. Behav. Brain Sci. 2023, 46, E119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  14. Saghravanian, S.J. Rethinking attention: A unified perspective on top-down and bottom-up processes. Acta Psychol. 2025, 258, 105244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  15. Diamond, A. Executive functions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2013, 64, 135–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  16. Amestoy, A.; Guillaud, E.; Bucchioni, G.; Zalla, T.; Umbricht, D.; Chatham, C.; Murtagh, L.; Houenou, J.; Delorme, R.; Moal, M.L.-L. Visual attention and inhibitory control in children, teenagers and adults with autism without intellectual disability: Results of oculomotor tasks from a 2-year longitudinal follow-up study (InFoR). Mol. Autism 2021, 12, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  17. van Moorselaar, D.; Slagter, H.A. Inhibition in selective attention: How the brain suppresses distracting information. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2020, 1464, 204–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  18. Manoli, A.; Liversedge, S.P.; Sonuga-Barke, E.J.S.; Hadwin, J.A. The differential effect of anxiety and ADHD symptoms on inhibitory control and sustained attention for threat stimuli: A Go/No-Go eye-movement study. J. Atten. Disord. 2020, 24, 1927–1939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  19. Tremblay, L.K.; Hammill, C.; Ameis, S.H.; Bhaijiwala, M.; Mabbott, D.J.; Anagnostou, E.; Lerch, J.P.; Schachar, R.J. Tracking inhibitory control in youth with ADHD: A multi-modal neuroimaging approach. Front. Psychiatry 2020, 11, 831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  20. Barzykowski, K.; Hajdas, S.; Radel, R.; Kvavilashvili, L. Effects of inhibitory control capacity and cognitive load on involuntary past and future thoughts: A laboratory study. Conscious. Cogn. 2022, 102, 103353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. Bompas, A.; Campbell, A.E.; Sumner, P. Cognitive control and automatic interference in mind and brain: A unified model of saccadic inhibition and countermanding. Psychol. Rev. 2020, 127, 524–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. Borkowska, A.R. The dynamics of attentional and inhibitory functions in the presence of distracting stimuli in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, high-functioning autism and oppositional defiant disorder. Psychiatr. Pol. 2016, 50, 68–80. [Google Scholar]
  23. Li, H.; Zhang, P.; Yan, B. Does type of exercise matter? Network meta-analysis of the effects of different exercise modalities on inhibitory control in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Curr. Psychol. 2025, 44, 11309–11318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  24. Senderecka, M.; Grabowska, A.; Szewczyk, J.; Gerc, K.; Chmylak, R. Response inhibition of children with ADHD in the stop-signal task: An event-related potential study. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 2012, 85, 93–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  25. Hawk, L.W., Jr.; Yartz, A.R.; Pelham, W.E., Jr.; Lock, T.M. The effects of methylphenidate on prepulse inhibition during attended and ignored prestimuli among boys with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Psychopharmacology 2003, 165, 118–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  26. Fillmore, M.T.; Milich, R.; Lorch, E.P. Inhibitory deficits in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Intentional versus automatic mechanisms of attention. Dev. Psychopathol. 2009, 21, 539–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  27. Mariani, M.M.C.; Lellis, V.R.R.; Novaes, R.A.C.B.; Schwartzman, J.S.; Teixeira, M.C.T.V.; Carreiro, L.R.R. Voluntary and automatic orienting of attention in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Arch. Clin. Psychiatry 2021, 48, 155–161. [Google Scholar]
  28. Marzocchi, G.M.; Cornoldi, C. Una scala di facile uso per la rilevazione dei comportamenti problematici dei bambini con deficit di attenzione e iperattività. Psicol. Clin. Sviluppo 2000, 4, 43–64. [Google Scholar]
  29. Marzocchi, G.M.; Oosterlaan, J.; De Meo, T.; Di Pietro, M.; Pezzica Pizzica, S.; Cavolina, P.; Zuddas, A. Disruptive behaviour disorder rating scale for teacher (Italian version). G. Neuropsichiatr. dell’Età Evol. 2001, 21, 378–393. [Google Scholar]
  30. Barkley, R.A. Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions: Constructing a unifying theory of ADHD. Psychol. Bull. 1997, 121, 65–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  31. Slaats-Willemse, D.; Swaab-Barneveld, H.; De Sonneville, L.; Van der Meulen, E.; Buitelaar, J.A.N. Deficient response inhibition as a cognitive endophenotype of ADHD. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2003, 42, 1242–1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  32. Cai, W.; Warren, S.L.; Duberg, K.; Yu, A.; Hinshaw, S.P.; Menon, V. Both reactive and proactive control are deficient in children with ADHD and predictive of clinical symptoms. Transl. Psychiatry 2023, 13, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  33. Fabio, R.A.; Bianco, M.; Caprì, T.; Marino, F.; Ruta, L.; Vagni, D.; Pioggia, G. Working memory and decision making in children with ADHD: An analysis of delay discounting with the use of the dual-task paradigm. BMC Psychiatry 2020, 20, 272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the participants.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the participants.
GroupsVariablesValues
ADHD-IGender, M/F18/6
Age, M (SD)10.92 (1.97)
DATAS-I, M (SD)19.80 (2.45)
DATAS-H, M (SD)3.40 (3.01)
ADHD-CGender M/F21/7
Age, M (SD)11.38 (1.92)
DATAS-I, M (SD)18.75 (2.55)
DATAS-H, M (SD)15.90 (2.10)
Control Gender, M/F39/13
Age, M (SD)11.05 (1.76)
DATAS-I, M (SD)1.00 (0.20)
DATAS-H, M (SD)0.80 (0.32)
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of premature saccades, proper saccades, and accuracy in the DOR task, and descriptive statistics of accuracy in the SI task.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of premature saccades, proper saccades, and accuracy in the DOR task, and descriptive statistics of accuracy in the SI task.
TaskParameterADHD-IADHD-CControl
DORpremature saccades36.58 (1.46)36.50 (1.79)14.00 (1.13)
proper saccades20.91 (1.53)20.50 (1.88)36.05 (1.19)
accuracy60.41 (3.08)59.37 (3.77)72.50 (2.38)
SIaccuracy−2.50 (1.49)−3.12 (1.83)−5.25 (1.16)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Caprì, T.; Fabio, R.A. Do Inhibitory Deficits in ADHD Reflect Both Controlled and Automatic Mechanisms? Psychiatry Int. 2026, 7, 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/psychiatryint7020069

AMA Style

Caprì T, Fabio RA. Do Inhibitory Deficits in ADHD Reflect Both Controlled and Automatic Mechanisms? Psychiatry International. 2026; 7(2):69. https://doi.org/10.3390/psychiatryint7020069

Chicago/Turabian Style

Caprì, Tindara, and Rosa Angela Fabio. 2026. "Do Inhibitory Deficits in ADHD Reflect Both Controlled and Automatic Mechanisms?" Psychiatry International 7, no. 2: 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/psychiatryint7020069

APA Style

Caprì, T., & Fabio, R. A. (2026). Do Inhibitory Deficits in ADHD Reflect Both Controlled and Automatic Mechanisms? Psychiatry International, 7(2), 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/psychiatryint7020069

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop