Background. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) patients have been reported to display deficits in action control processes. While it is known that subliminally and consciously induced conflicts interact and conjointly modulate action control in healthy subjects, this has never been investigated for ADHD. Method. We investigated the (potential) interaction of subliminally and consciously triggered response conflicts in children with ADHD and matched healthy controls using neuropsychological methods (event-related potentials; ERPs) to identify the involved cognitive sub-processes. Results. Unlike healthy controls, ADHD patients showed no interaction of subliminally and consciously triggered response conflicts. Instead, they only showed additive effects as their behavioural performance (accuracy) was equally impaired by each conflict and they showed no signs of task-goal shielding even in cases of low conflict load. Of note, this difference between ADHD and controls was not rooted in early bottom-up attentional stimulus processing as reflected by the P1 and N1 ERPs. Instead, ADHD showed either no or reversed modulations of conflict-related processes and response selection as reflected by the N2 and P3 ERPs. Conclusion. There are fundamental differences in the architecture of cognitive control which might be of use for future diagnostic procedures. Unlike healthy controls, ADHD patients do not seem to be endowed with a threshold which allows them to maintain high behavioural performance in the face of low conflict load. ADHD patients seem to lack sufficient top-down attentional resources to maintain correct response selection in the face of conflicts by shielding the response selection process from response tendencies evoked by any kind of distractor.

Bei einem Spaziergang im Mondlicht nehmen wir Ereignisse verschiedenster Intensität wahr. Vom blendenden Licht eines vorbeifahrenden Motorrads bis hin zu undeutlichen Schatten. Verarbeiten wir diese Ereignisse alle gleich? In dieser Arbeit untersuchte ich, wie das visuelle System auf Stimuli reagiert, die so niedrig in ihrer Intensität sind, dass wir sie nicht wahrnehmen. Frühere somatosensorische Studien zeigten eine kortikale Deaktivierung aufgrund subliminaler Stimulation. Diese wurde als Hemmungsmechanismus interpretiert zur Unterdrückung kortikalen Rauschens. Unterstützt wurde diese Aussage durch ein Verhaltensexperiment, in dem der Schwellwert für somatosensorische Stimuli bei subliminaler Stimulation erhöht war. Gibt es im visuellen System äquivalente Hemmungsmechanismen? In Studie I untersuchte ich die Wahrnehmung schwellnaher visueller Zielreize: die Wahrnehmung verschlechterte sich bei gleichzeitiger subliminaler Stimulation im selben Hemifield. Inhibitorische Interneurone könnten diesen Effekt hervorrufen. Gleichzeitig zeigten Nervenzell-Studien die Degeneration intrakortikaler Inhibition mit dem fortschreitendem Alter von Affen. In Studie II untersuchte ich daher Unterschiede inhibitorischer Mechanismen einer kleinen Gruppe von älteren Probanden und verglich diese mit den jüngeren Probanden aus Studie I. In Studie III, einer elektrophysiologischen Studie, führt subliminale Stimulation zu einer Verstärkung des Alpha-Rhythmus. Supraliminale Stimulation führt zu einer Verstärkung niedriger Frequenzen und einer Abschwächung des Alpha-Rhythmus. Die spezifische neuronale Signatur aufgrund subliminaler Stimulation deutet darauf hin, dass die neuronale Verarbeitung des Stimulus zu einer Verringerung der Aktivität in involvierten Arealen führt. Ein Rauschunterdrückungs-Mechanismus wurde im somatosensorischen System beschrieben und könnte für die verringerte Wahrnehmung der schwellnahen Zielreize bei subliminaler Stimulation verantwortlich sein. / Walking along a street on a moonlit night, we can perceive visual events at a wide range of intensities – from the blinding light of a passing motorcycle to faint shadows. Does the visual system react similarly to all of these events? Here, I investigated how the visual system reacts to stimuli that are so low in their intensity that they are not perceived. It has been shown that subliminal low-intensity somatosensory stimuli lead to a cortical deactivation or inhibition. This deactivation was interpreted as inhibition mechanism that usually protects the cortex against activation by noise. Also, a behavioural experiment showed an increased sensitivity threshold for peri-liminal stimuli during subliminal stimulation. Does a similar mechanism exist within the visual System? In Study I, I investigated the perception of visual peri-liminal target-stimuli under different conditions. The threshold for target-stimuli significantly increased when presented during subliminal stimulation on the same side as the target-stimulus. The underlying mechanism could be mediated through intracortical inhibition. Concurrently, studies in macaque senescent neurons suggest a degradation of intracortical inhibition with age. In Study II, I therefore investigated differences of inhibitory responses in a group of elderly subjects and compared the results to the young participants in Study I. In Study III, using electroencephalography, I show that subliminal stimulation leads to an alpha-band power increase, whereas supraliminal stimulation leads to a lower frequency increase and an alpha-band power decrease. Specific neural signature in response to subliminal stimulation indicate neural processing of the stimulus that lead to a down-regulation of areas involved in stimulus processing. This mechanism could serve a suppression of input noise that has been described in the somatosensory system and may lead to decreased detection of peri-liminal target-stimuli during subliminal stimulation.