DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17314288
title: ATTLAPSE: Behavioral and EEG dataset of ADHD patients and neurotypical controls during a Go/No-Go task with embedded thought-probes

description: Dataset description

The ATTLAPSE_SART_EEG dataset was created by Gabriela Horáková, Sébastien Weibel, Ugo Tissot, Bich-Thuy Pham, Madalina Elena Costache, and Anne Bonnefond and conforms to BIDS version 1.7.0. This report was generated with MNE-BIDS (Appelhoff et al.,  2019). The dataset consists of 56 participants (comprised of 27 male and 29 female participants; comprised of 56 right hand, 0 left hand and 0 ambidextrous; ages ranged from 18.0 to 59.0 (mean = 32.66, std =11.32)). There were 56 scans in total. Recording durations ranged from 2266.0 to 2961.0 seconds (mean = 2508.55, std = 147.88), for a total of 140478.97 seconds of data recorded over all scans.

Twenty-eight medication-naïve patients diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and twenty-eight healthy control participants completed a Go/No-Go task (Sustained Attention to Response Task; SART) embedded with thought-probes (experience sampling) to assess different attentional states, including spontaneous and deliberate mind-wandering. During the experiment, participants’ brain activity was recorded using a 64-channel EEG system. Symptom severity was additionally assessed using the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS). This dataset was analyzed to investigate the influence of mind-wandering on behavioral performance and cognitive processes. Reaction time, reaction time variability, and commission errors (performance measures), along with P100, P3b, and CRN ERP components (electrophysiological measures), were compared between mind-wandering and on-task episodes, as well as between ADHD and control groups, within a 20-trial window preceding each probe.

 

Content

Architecture

This dataset has been formatted with MNE-BIDS (Appelhoff et al., 2019) and is compliant with the BIDS format. Its structure is the following:

- The main information about the dataset is available in README.txt and dataset_description.json

- participants.tsv: subjects main characteristics (ID, age, sex, handedness)

- participants.json: subjects characteristics description and their corresponding meaning

- A unique folder for each subject containing:

---- sub-{subject_id}_scans.tsv: acquisition date and time

---- eeg:

-------- sub-{subject_id}_task-sart_beh.tsv: raw behavioral data, first line is the variable name (see below for description), each line is a trial

-------- sub-{subject_id}_task-sart_beh.json: behavioral data description (as also described below)

-------- sub-{subject_id}_task-sart_channels.tsv: name and types of channels. The first 64 are EEG channels, sorted accordingly to the montage, then the external channels (2 earlobes, 4 EOG, 2 EMG) and the trigger channel (Status)

-------- sub-{subject_id}_task-sart_eeg.bdf: raw EEG signal

-------- sub-{subject_id}_task-sart_eeg.json: EEG acquisition main information (manufacturer of the acquisition system, sampling frequency etc.)

-------- sub-{subject_id}_task-sart_events.tsv: triggers

-------- sub-{subject_id}_task-sart_events.json: description of trigger characteristics in events.tsv

 

Behavior

Task

Participants completed the SART (Robertson et al., 1997), a computerized Go/No-Go task in which single-digit numbers from 1 to 9 were randomly presented with an equivalent probability of appearance (1/9). Participants were instructed to press the response button whenever a digit appeared on the screen (Go trial), except for the digit 3, which required no response (No-Go trial). They were encouraged to be quick and accurate. A total of 810 trials (720 Go trials and 90 No-Go trials) were divided into 15 blocks of either 27, 54, or 81 trials. The whole task required approximately 40 minutes per participant. At the end of each block, a thought-probe of five questions was presented on the screen. The first question asked participants about their attentional state immediately before the probe. Three response options were possible: 1) on-task (OT); 2) spontaneous mind-wandering (MW-S) and 3) deliberate mind-wandering (MW-D). The subsequent four questions inquired regarding participants' level of motivation, boredom, fatigue and task difficulty by positioning on analog scales that ranged from "Lowest level = 0" to "Highest level = 100." 

 

Description of data variables

This table details each variable column in the sub-{subject_id}_task-sart_beh.tsv files.




A
Trial number 


B
Trial type (1 = Go trial; 2 = No-go trial)


C
Stimulus displayed (numbers ranging from 1 to 9)


D
Reaction times (in seconds)


E
Response type (0 = no response; 1 = response)


F
Interstimulus interval (in seconds)


G
Response validity (0 = correct response; 1 = incorrect response [omission or commission errors])


H
Auto-evaluation of attentional state (25-30 = On-task; 33-37 = deliberate mind-wandering; 40-44 = spontaneous mind-wandering)


I
Auto-evaluation of motivation (ranging from 0 to 100)


J
Auto-evaluation of boredom (ranging from 0 to 100)


K
Auto-evaluation of fatigue (ranging from 0 to 100)


L
Auto-evaluation of difficulty (ranging from 0 to 100)




 

Electroencephalography

Acquisition

The EEG was recorded with the BioSemi ActiveTwo System (Amsterdam, Netherlands) using a montage of 64 active electrodes, following the international 10-20 standard system. Two additional electrodes - a common mode sense (CMS) active electrode and a driven right leg (DRL) passive electrode placed on the nape - served mainly as reference and ground electrodes. The signal was acquired at a sampling rate of 2048 Hz with line noise at 50 Hz. The electrooculography (EOG) was recorded by two electrodes placed at the outer canthi of the eyes and two electrodes placed above and below the right eye. Two supplementary reference electrodes were attached to the earlobes.

 

Subjects excluded from analysis

Excluded subjects: P03, P15, T33, T39, T43Two patients and three controls were excluded from the EEG analysis due to poor data quality, which was characterized by numerous noisy channels in the same region that could not interpolated. The EEG analysis was conducted on a final sample of 51 participants, which comprised 26 patients and 25 controls. 

 

Contact

Corresponding Author: Gabriela Horáková (gabriela@horakovci.eu)