Abstract
Clinically referred children, diagnosed as having learning or attention disorders, with or without hyperactivity, were found to vary widely on a measure of nervous system sensitivity recommended by the Pavlovian investigator Vasilev. That is, the children were contrasted on their mean press and release reaction times (RTs) to four tones, ranging from soft (55 db) to very loud (100 db), with the expectation that some would be able to maintain a parallel separation of press and release RT gradients across all intensity levels (strength), whereas others would show convergence or overlap of the gradients at higher intensities (weakness). Contrary to expectation, girls did not have weaker or more sensitive nervous systems than boys, although the girls rated themselves as less tolerant of intense stimuli. Significantly more of the children diagnosed as hyperactive had weaker nervous systems. The boys also participated in a blind crossover study contrasting placebo and methylphenidate effects; the prescribing physician, who was not informed of the child’s nervous system classification, adjusted the dosage levels so that subjects with weaker nervous systems were titrated at higher dosage levels than those with stronger nervous systems. Gray (1964) suggested an explanation of this paradox, i.e., that the weak nervous system requires a more intense stimulus than the strong to reach the threshold of concentration (or focused attention), whereas for other thresholds the strong requires a more intense stimulus than the weak. Gray’s theory was further supported by the finding that children typed as weak (unmedicated) did not show as great facilitation in RT with reward (moderate stimulus) as did those typed as strong.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ackerman, R. T., Dykman, R. A., and Oglesby, D. M. Sex and group differences in reading and attention disordered children, with and without hyperkinesis.Journal of Learning Disabilities (In press).
Buchsbaum, M. Self-regulation of stimulus intensity: Augmenting/reducing and the average evoked response. In G. E. Schwartz and D. Shapiro (Eds.),Consciousness and Self-regulation. New York: Plenum Publishing Co., 1976, pp. 101–135.
Buchsbaum, M., and Silverman, J. Stimulus intensity control and the cortical evoked response.Psychosomatic Medicine, 1968,30, 12–22.
Buchsbaum, M., and Wender, P. Average evoked responses in normal and minimally brain dysfunctioned children treated with amphetamine.Archives of General Psychiatry, 1973,29, 764–770.
Conners, C. K. Symptom patterns in hyperkinetic, neurotic, and normal children.Child Development, 1970,41, 667–682.
Conners, C. K. A teacher rating scale for use in drug studies with children.American Journal of Psychiatry, 1969,126, 152–156.
Douglas, V. I., and Peters, K. G. Toward a clearer definition of the attentional deficit of hyperactive children. In G. A. Hale and M. Lewis (Eds.),Attention and Cognitive Development. New York: Plenum Publishing Co., 1979.
Dykman, R. A., Ackerman, P. T., Clements, S. D., and Peters, J. E. Specific learning disabilities: An attentional deficit syndrome. In H. R. Mykleburst (Ed.),Progress in Learning Disabilities. Vol. II. NewYork: Grune & Stratton, 1971, pp. 56–93.
Dykman, R. A., Ackerman, P. T., and McCray, D. S. Effects of methylphenidate on selective and sustained attention in hyperactive, reading-disabled, and presumably attention-disordered boys.Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1980,168, 745–752.
Fowles, D. C. The three arousal model: Implications of Gray’s two factor learning theory for heart rate, electrodermal activity, and psychopathy.Psychophysiology, 1980,17, 87–104.
Gray, J. A. Strength of the nervous system as a dimension of personality in man: A review of work from the laboratory of B. M. Teplov. In J. A. Gray (Ed.),Pavlov’s Typology. New York: MacMillan (Pergamon Press), 1964, pp. 157–287.
Greenhouse, S. W., and Geisser, S. On methods in the analysis of profile data.Psychometricka, 1959,24, 95–112.
Hall, R. A., Griffin, R. B., Moyer, D. L., Hopkins, K. H., and Rapoport, M. Evoked potential, stimulus intensity, and drug treatment in hyperkinesis.Psychophysiology, 1976,13, 405–418.
Kagan, J. Information processing in the child: Significance of analytic and reflective attitudes.Psychological Monographs, 1964,78, no. 518.
Karp, S. A., and Konstadt, N.Manual for the Children’s Embedded Figures Test. New York: Cognitive Tests, 1963.
Kohler, W., and Dinnerstein, D. Figurai after-effects in kinesthesis. In A. Michotte (Ed.),Miscellanea Psychologica. Paris: Vrin., 1947.
Lacey, J. I. The evaluation of autonomic responses: Toward a general solution.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1956,67, 123–164.
Petrie, A.Individuality in Pain and Suffering. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967.
Porter, R. P., and Cattell, R. B.Manual for the Children’s Personality Questionnaire, “CPQ.” Champaign, Ill.: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1972.
Santostefano, S.Clinical Child Psychology: A Biodevelopmental Approach. Vol. I: Theory and Diagnostic Methods for Cognitive Disabilities. New York: Wiley, 1977.
Santostefano, S. Cognitive controls versus cognitive styles: An approach to diagnosing and treating cognitive disabilities in children. In S. Chess and A. Thomas (Eds.),Annual Progress in Child Psychiatry and Child Development. New York: Brunner/ Mazel, 1970, pp. 70–103.
Teplov, B. M. Problems in the study of general types of higher nervous activity in man and animals. In J. A. Gray (Ed.),Pavlov’s Typology. New York: MacMillan, 1964, pp. 3–153.
Vasilev, A. N. The relation between reaction times to the onset and termination of a signal as an index of strength of the nervous system.Voprosy Psikhology, 1960,6, 113–122.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grants MH-31871 and MH-30182 and by the Marie Wilson Howells Fund.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ackerman, P.T., Holcomb, P.J., McCray, D.S. et al. Studies of nervous system sensitivity in children with learning and attention disorders. Pav. J. Biol. Sci. 17, 30–41 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03003473
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03003473