【導(dǎo)讀】在學(xué)齡兒童中ADHD的患病率為%一%。注意缺陷多動(dòng)障礙的確診常見。于學(xué)齡兒童中，而注意力的缺陷是其核心，反應(yīng)的是局部執(zhí)行功能存在障礙。意缺陷型ADHD患兒的工作記憶功能障礙進(jìn)行相關(guān)的研究。續(xù)的，無(wú)重復(fù)的，也不按某種順序排列，如奇偶。2到9個(gè)廣度逐步增加。每個(gè)廣度的測(cè)驗(yàn)，包括兩組數(shù)字，如果被試在兩組數(shù)字上都正確，實(shí)驗(yàn)一考察了編碼階段的加工負(fù)載對(duì)ADHD兒童語(yǔ)音工作記憶的影響。負(fù)載條件和低負(fù)載條件，對(duì)比兩組被試在不同條件上的成績(jī)。分別設(shè)計(jì)高水平負(fù)載條件和低負(fù)載條件，對(duì)比兩。結(jié)果表明，組別主效應(yīng)，負(fù)載主效應(yīng)，組別和負(fù)載的交互作。版把它命名為注意缺陷多動(dòng)障礙。

　　

【正文】 by the participant. This procedure allows one to examine the extent to which people use valuebased information to guide the efficient use of memory (., by intentionally recalling higher valued items). The point value assigned to each item during encoding indicates how important each item is to remember. This task differs from traditional measures of episodic memory or mon tests of WM span as it examines the strategic control of encoding highvalue information. Whereas this valuedirected remembering approach may share some resources with WM function, the selectivity task specifically allows for an examination of the strategic deployment of memory capacity, and the awareness of limited memory capacity (which can be conceptualized as a form of metamemory). In the selectivity paradigm, participants are presented with lists of words, with each word in the list having a distinct value ranging from 1 to 12 points. Participants are instructed to remember as many words as possible, with the goal of maximizing their score, which is the sum of the point values of each recalled word. After recall,participants are told their score, and then are given a new list, with instructions to maximize their score. Using a selectivity index (SI) developed by Watkins and Bloom (1999。 see also Hanten et al., 2021), we examined how selectivity changed with task experience. This SI is based on the participant’s score (the sum of the points that were paired with therecalled items, or the “value” of the recalled items), relative to chance and ideal performance. The equation accounts for the participant’s score relative to an ideal score that represents recall of only the most highly valued words at that level of recall. For example, if a given participant remembered four words, and the points associated with the words were 12, 10, 9, and 8, that participants’ SI would be considered quite high. The ideal score for four words is 12 +11 +10 +9 = 42, whereas the score of the participant in 蘇州大學(xué)本科生畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì) （ 論文 ） 23 question is 39. A chance score is based on calculating the average value of the points (using a 12word list, with numbers ranging from 1 to 12, the average would be ) and multiplying that value by the number of words recalled (in this case, 4). Thus, the SI in this case is (39 –26)/(42–26) = .81. It is important to note that the index can range from 1 to _1. Perfect selectivity would result in an SI of , whereas selection of words with the lowest values (., recalling the 1, 2, and 3point words) would result in an SI of . A set of words recalled with no regard to their point values (., showing no selectivity) would result in a selectivity index close to 0. Thus, the SI provides a selectivity, or efficiency, index based on one’s actual score, relative to an ideal score, taking into account the number of words recalled. Previous work using the selectivity task has shown that although healthy older adults recalled fewer words than younger adults, older adults enhanced their selectivity score (to levels similar to younger adults) by recalling highvalue items (Castel et al., 2021). In addition, Castel and colleagues (2021) have shown that, despite recalling fewer items relative to younger adults, healthy older adults begin to develop a strategy (after several lists) of focusing on the higher value items to maximize their score. This ability to be selective was found to be somewhat impaired in older adults with early signs of Alzheimer’s disease (Castel, Balota, amp。 McCabe, 2021).In addition, Hanten and colleagues found deficits among children with brain injury and autism (Hanten et al., 2021, 2021). Of significance to the current study, Hanten and colleagues (2021)observed that the number of words recalled and selectivity were independent in a diverse sample of children, suggesting that perhaps different neural systems may contribute to memory capacity and the selective control of attention to highvalue items. Thus, the SI provides a useful measure of memory efficiency that goes beyond simply measuring the overall quantity of recalled items (cf. Koriat amp。 Goldsmith, 1996). These findings suggest an important distinction between memory quantity and efficiency across the life span. The selectivity task can also provide a measure of how people learn which items to attend to across lists (., with task experience).In this task, participants are presented with several lists or trials, and after each list are given feedback about their score, which is the sum of the point 蘇州大學(xué)本科生畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì) （ 論文 ） 24 values of the words that they recalled. To achieve an optimal score (via efficient use of memory), participants need to focus on or attend to the highvalue items and recal lthem on the immediate memory test. The number of items presented in each list (., 12) is greater than the typical memory span of an individual, so many participants learn that they cannot remember all of the items, and, consequently, attempt to maximize their score by focusing on remembering only the most valuable items in each list. Participants typically learn to attend to high valueitems, as reflected by the finding that the SI increases across successive lists and with task experience (Castel, 2021). The ability to selectively recall highvalue items has been examined in children as young as 6 years old and has been shown to be impaired in children with traumatic brain injury (Hanten et al.,2021, 2021). Given the need to selectively allocate attention to highvalue words and to inhibit the allocation of attention to lowvalue words in the selectivity task, we were especially interested in how children with ADHD would perform on this task. To more rigorously ascertain the nature of WM deficits in ADHD, we administered the selectivity task to examine how value influences strateg