Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Medicine Science

Involuntary Eye Movement May Provide Definitive Diagnosis of ADHD 200

Posted by Soulskill
from the either-that-or-a-massive-brain-hemmorhage dept.
Zothecula writes: If a child who's simply very active is mistakenly diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), he can end up on pharmaceuticals such as Ritalin unnecessarily. The problem is, it can be quite difficult to determine if someone actually has ADHD, and misdiagnoses are common. Now, however, researchers from Tel Aviv University have announced that analyzing a patient's eye movements may be the key. "The researchers found a direct correlation between ADHD and the inability to suppress eye movement in the anticipation of visual stimuli. The research also reflected improved performance by participants taking methylphenidate, which normalized the suppression of involuntary eye movements to the average level of the control group."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Involuntary Eye Movement May Provide Definitive Diagnosis of ADHD

Comments Filter:
  • by sandytaru (1158959) on Friday August 15, 2014 @01:30PM (#47679843) Journal
    I can stay focused just fine (*flicks eyes to where Outlook just refreshed*) and concentrate for long periods of time (*glances outside - cute squirrel!*) and I can assure you my eyes stay glued firmly to the screen. (*twitches and changes tabs because the title bar just changed on one*)
    • by JMJimmy (2036122) on Friday August 15, 2014 @02:47PM (#47680673)

      They need to be specific, this applies to ADHD-H. This does not apply to ADHD-I and is questionable with ADHD-C. I have ADHD-I and I have the problem that my eyes get sore from hyperfocusing to the extent that my body forgets to blink.

      Besides, they already have a definitive diagnosis. A brain scan. Aside from the very obvious differences in brain wave patterns, the structure of the brain is physically different. ADHD-H will show the centre of the brain growing at an accelerated rate compared to the other areas of the brain. ADHD-I will show under development of the frontal and/or temporal lobes and a noted size difference in the rear of the brain (something on the right side rear is smaller)... I'm totally not awake so all the appropriate terms and thoughts in general aren't coming to me...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] --this lecture talks about it... it's split into a bunch of random pieces so I don't know which one the ADHD-I brain portion is in... that or there's a 3 hour video with it all (I think it's the same lecture)

  • by jrivar59 (146428) on Friday August 15, 2014 @01:35PM (#47679895)

    If used incorrect, just apply the antidote: Ritalout.

  • by sudden.zero (981475) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [orez.neddus]> on Friday August 15, 2014 @01:40PM (#47679953)
    ...in how they determined that their control group didn't have ADHD since it's so hard to diagnose, lol! All jesting aside I think that this is very interesting, and if it works I would love for my step daughter to be tested this way. She has been diagnosed ADHD, and I believe the diagnosis to be correct. She has trouble focusing on anything regardless of environmental variables.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by qpqp (1969898)

      She has trouble focusing on anything regardless of environmental variables.

      As others have pointed out, in most cases this is called "being a kid." If something's presented in a boring way, try to do that differently. And, more importantly, try to think outside your box and find out things on which she does focus pretty well.

      • by Andtalath (1074376) on Friday August 15, 2014 @02:18PM (#47680393)

        Nope.
        Notice the "regardless of the circumstances".

        Medicating with amphetamine all the time is obviosuly quite moronic.
        I myself need it to function normally in the work-environment.

        I didn't even realize what people meant by saying "just concentrate" until I took my first methylphenedate when I was 25.

        ADHD is an issue, and it's NOT just kids being kids.
        It's a fundamentally different way for the brain/body to function then the norm.

        • Yes and no.
          There are two kinds of ADHD. The 'old' one and the hyped one.
          The former is pathologically founded in the child; the latter is socially founded in the parent.

          • A friend of mine once took his kid to the doctor with "measles" only to be told they were mosquito bites, way back in 1980 my wife and I took our first born to casualty because he was "throwing up blood", felt relived but a tad foolish when the doctor asked; did you give him blackcurrant juice? Now for the sake of argument, let's say a significant portion of cases are "socially founded in the parent", who the fuck is supplying the parent with ritalin on the basis of the parent's ammature diagnosis?

            Conce
        • by robsku (1381635)

          It's a fundamentally different way for the brain/body to function then the norm.

          And "anti-ADHD" people, having ignored actual information and studies about it, lack the knowledge that it's actually physically proven to be caused by irregular functioning of the brains dopamine system. Pardon my france in case the above seems linguistically wrong - personally I blame my ADHD ;)

          • by slew (2918)

            Although you might disparage so called anti-ADHD people as being as a group ignorant, likewise some ADHD proponents exhibit a lack of knowledge of analogous medical anomalies like antibiotic abuse, or even somatic and conversion disorders (including, Münchausen syndrome or Münchausen syndrome by proxy)...

            FWIW, it appears (to me anyhow) the current diagnostic of ADHD is problematic in that it is really an attempt to categorize a vague set of symptoms (effectively a syndrome) and associate this with

            • by robsku (1381635)

              This post, unlike the ones just simply in denial of the whole AD(H)D existing at all, is hardly something I would disagree with :) You make very good points and present them clearly and politely (more so than I'm capable at times).

              Also, I am concerned of misdiagnosis and over subscribing of stimulants (especially for children) that is rampant in some countries (USA being one such place as far as I've come to understand). It's not only damaging to those who are being misdiagnosed but in the long run it may w

          • by Mr.CRC (2330444)
            You realize, of course, that a large segment of the population don't even believe that their functioning is a result of the functioning of an electro-chemical computer in the first place. So they will never understand ADHD, or mental illness.
        • by qpqp (1969898)

          Notice the "regardless of the circumstances".

          Yeah, however I just took this as a generalization, since it'd be quite a statement to say that someone tried everything.

          I didn't even realize what people meant by saying "just concentrate" until I took my first methylphenedate when I was 25.

          Not meaning to troll, but if you try some acid, you'll realize there's a whole spectrum of "awareness" and "concentration" that you weren't aware of, if you feel such a difference from methylphenidate. (Just make sure to ha

  • by Ecuador (740021) on Friday August 15, 2014 @01:46PM (#47680023) Homepage
    I thought there already was a definitive diagnostic test. See here [cc.com] or here [cc.com] (for those who like me are not in the US or a country where you can access the videos, you will need a browser plugin to view them, e.g. I have Media Hint - sorry for the inconvenience).
  • The persistence of the notion of this disorder is disturbing. The method by which it's diagnosed is faulty. You can't come in after all this legacy of crap and tell us that you can diagnose it physiologically using a single criteria like this. These assertions will be disproven within the year. The entire ADHD diagnosis phenomenon is the culture struggling with the ramifications of human interaction with technology. You can't set the example of "pay close attention to the stimulating box for long perio

    • On the plus side, even if we accept the assertion that the disorder is nonsense (which is questionable; but for the sake of argument); the usual treatment has the virtue of being sufficiently useful, safe, and even pleasant that plenty of people who don't even suspect ADHD will try to score some through alternate channels or complain until they get a prescription.

      The risks aren't zero, and there are certain people who should stay away; but psychostimulants are some very nice drugs.
      • On the plus side, even if we accept the assertion that the disorder is nonsense (which is questionable; but for the sake of argument); the usual treatment has the virtue of being sufficiently useful, safe, and even pleasant that plenty of people who don't even suspect ADHD will try to score some through alternate channels or complain until they get a prescription.

        The risks aren't zero, and there are certain people who should stay away; but psychostimulants are some very nice drugs.

        I have to reject that. Slippery slope. If we take enough drugs, we can totally mechanize and work/play on our machines/selves/machineselves all the time, and be "content" about it. Why would that be good, as opposed to changing our expectation of the next generation being the same mental configuration as the previous one?

        • by Lazere (2809091)

          ADHD meds are no more a slippery slope than Antidepressants before them. And they were no more a slippery slope than the Tobacco/Pot/Alcohol/Coffee before them. Arguments like yours are why Slippery Slope is considered a logical fallacy.

          • ADHD meds are no more a slippery slope than Antidepressants before them. And they were no more a slippery slope than the Tobacco/Pot/Alcohol/Coffee before them. Arguments like yours are why Slippery Slope is considered a logical fallacy.

            I'm saying that seeking chemical sources to soothe over the overabundance of reward-based interactions we are experiencing will naturally progress towards escalating both the drugs and the reward-based interactions. I apologize if I misused the term "slippery slope". Invoking antidepressants as an example of harmlessness is far more questionable than any incorrect naming of a type of fallacy I may have done.

            • by Lazere (2809091)

              No, you used the term "slippery slope" correctly. The very premise of your slope is flawed. As a society, we've had mind altering drugs that directly stimulate our reward centers for as long as we've been a society. Nearly everyone takes some kind, but we still have an incredibly small percentage of people looking to use the harder stuff (antidepressants, ADHD drugs, street drugs). Given this history, it seems highly unlikely that we're heading toward a future of "mechanized work/play" any time soon.

              • by slew (2918)

                No, you used the term "slippery slope" correctly. The very premise of your slope is flawed. As a society, we've had mind altering drugs that directly stimulate our reward centers for as long as we've been a society. Nearly everyone takes some kind, but we still have an incredibly small percentage of people looking to use the harder stuff (antidepressants, ADHD drugs, street drugs). Given this history, it seems highly unlikely that we're heading toward a future of "mechanized work/play" any time soon.

                FWIW, historically, Opium dens and crack houses did not consume much more than a small percentage of actual people, but it was significant enough to cause wide-spread effect on the population as a whole. Just because we aren't headed toward a future of "mechanized work/play", doesn't mean that the slope isn't slippery, it's just that you aren't likely to slip too far, but even then some might not like the consequences of slipping a small amount (depending on your definition of "small")...

                • by Lazere (2809091)

                  No matter what happens, there are going to be some who don't like it. That's life.

      • but psychostimulants are some very nice drugs.

        Indeed. Caffeine is remarkably safe an effective, if not incredibly powerful. Coca leaves are also quite safe. Cocaine and amphetamines not so much. Of course, then one gets into the murky question of how much you let individuals control and take responsibility for their actions. I give the US another generation before pretty much everything is either on the table for everyone to snort or everything the other side of the classic triumvirate (alcohol, tobacco and firearms, oops, coffee) will get you tos

        • by ihtoit (3393327)

          uh... caffeine is sixty times more potent than cocaine. Read the literature.

          • by Mr.CRC (2330444)

            WTF are you talking about, they work on completely different neurotransmitter systems and by different mechanisms (one an agonist, the other an antagonist). How can you even make meaningful comparisons of such apples and oranges?

            The problem with cocaine is that it's short lived, and the brain's dopamine circuit activity undershoots when it wears off, leaving one with an awful depressing crash.

            Cocaine is nothing but a novelty, though one that sheds valuable light on the workings of the brain.

            Someone figu

    • by mveloso (325617)

      Humans have been interacting with technology since the dawn of the species.

      "Hey grog, stop staring into that fucking fire all the time, it'll ruin your eyes"
      "That beer is going to kill you"
      "That meat stuff you're eating is unnatural. Humans were meant to eat berries and plants and shit."
      "Cooking is going to rot your brain. Meat was meant to be eaten raw."

      I mean, come on. Blame chemicals, which are more likely to be the problem than "man interacting with technology." That's like blaming your fleshbot for the

      • You misunderstand me. I'm not blaming technology. I'm blaming our lack of understanding of how our interaction with it affects us as a group over time.

    • Could you please just talk with any psychiatrist for this subject for five minutes?

      Stop trying to apply common sense, which is basically just a nice word for prejudive, instead of lookint at the facts.

      • If you're looking for facts, don't go to a psychiatrist. Solace, understanding, compassion, drugs maybe. But not facts.

    • Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but from I know of human history the expectation of children was that they should be able to quietly observe their parents and learn from them. And of course early actions like hunting would require paying close attention for long periods of time. I suppose ADHD would've been ok when we were hunter gathers, but once we moved on to tool useage and planning on ways to procure food, it it would've become a liability.

    • by robsku (1381635)

      There is no "massive change" in percentage of people with ADD/ADHD though, it just was previously not understood. I can sympathesize with you though as you come from diseased culture where over- and mis- diagnosing AD(H)D is the norm (wtf is that shit about "pat close attention..." about? That has nothing to do with methods of diagnosing ADD or ADHD in civilized societies) and adults that are lazy fsck's who do happily accept drugs as substitute for parenting to escape their responsibilities. Sad as it is,

  • by bluefoxlucid (723572) on Friday August 15, 2014 @01:51PM (#47680085) Journal

    They put me on methylphenedate. Then they put me on Risperdone to control the psychosis induced by methylphenedate. The drugs are horrible. The only thing worse is Prednizone.

    Phenotropil is effective in small doses, with fewer and less severe side effects. I did the pharmacology myself, with lots of Googling. Psychosis isn't a side effect--Phenotropil sharply controls, reduces, and prevents dementia--but INSOMNIA sure as hell is!

    Okay, I found better drugs. But the drugs still have bad side effects. Let's face it: Insomnia is bad. I have always had delayed sleep phase disorder (self-diagnosis): if I don't rigidly discipline my sleep, any deviation causes me to stay awake. Stay up until 10:30? Become no longer tired, until 1-2am, then sleep until noon--and continue to do this until I somehow fix my sleep cycle, so I can't ever have a night out. On-call fucking sucks. And now, due to further conditioning, I not only can't sleep early, but I can't stay in bed past 7am; I'm sleep-deprived because my body refuses to get more than 4-6 hours of sleep!

    I could take sleep drugs. Melatonin no longer works: after some occasional use, it now only works in high doses; and both high doses and chronic use cause my nuts to ache for extended periods, which I thought was just me sleeping on my side or something... until I found out melatonin affects testosterone production and can be bad for the testicles. Whoops. Valerian... I ran through a railroad crossing barrier. Ambien and Allegra I've seen do the same: you're incredibly fucking high, but you feel fine... until you crash into a parked car, or smile and nod while a pedestrian wanders in front of you. Thud.

    That doesn't mean drugs are BAD; they're risk. You risk side effects against a disease. Is your ADHD worse than ... potential insomnia? Potential minor psychosis? Psychosis can be MAJOR if you're prone to dementia. Sleep drugs may not ruin your life; out of millions of cases, I know one person who almost died because Ambien affects him for 10 hours and he didn't know that. Of course you should take life-saving drugs, and life-enhancing drugs, if the side effects don't occur or are less bad than your symptoms.

    I think we should drop back to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and floatation-REST as our first attempts for ADHD and Aspergers [nih.gov] and insomnia [circle.ubc.ca]. CBT is a particular sticking point in insomnia: bad sleep hygiene is terrible, and parents are horrible parents for forcing their kids into bed. Go to bed even if you're not tired? Fuck you, mom. If you're not asleep in 10 minutes, GET OUT OF BED. Don't do other things in bed. Wake your ass up in the morning; if you're tired, too bad. Get up. When you're sleepy, you'll sleep at night.

    So yeah. Let's eject this ADHD magic pill bullshit. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, physical activity, and flotation-REST to start; move up to lighter drugs (lighter side effects, even if less effective), and then into the heavy shit (methylphenedate, adderall, drug cocktails). Throwing methylphenedate down someone's throat as a first option is like launching MIRV nukes three seconds after someone stands and shakes his fist at the UN table.

    • by njnnja (2833511)

      move up to lighter drugs (lighter side effects, even if less effective), and then into the heavy shit (methylphenedate, adderall, drug cocktails)

      What are "lighter drugs"? Not trying to call you out; I appreciate the level of honesty in your post. But I thought that stimulants were lighter drugs, compared to, say, antidepressants or antipsychotics

    • by afidel (530433)

      On Melatonin, this [oxfordjournals.org] study says there is no decrease in testoserone production.

    • In my experience (I'm from Sweden and have an ADHD diagnosis and know a lot of people with the same one), the right way is to have a bit of both.

      The pills won't "cure" anything.
      They will, in many cases, dampen the symtoms.

      And that is all.

      Extremely useful for some, including me.

    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      I have always had delayed sleep phase disorder (self-diagnosis)

      Melatonin no longer works: after some occasional use, it now only works in high doses;

      Melatonin isn't a sleeping pill* and you're probably not using it correctly.

      The correct** way to use melatonin is in low doses 5~8 hours before bed time.
      Melatonin is your brain's way of saying "hey, it's dark out, let's push over the chemical dominoes that will lead to sleep."

      On the other end, when you wake up, you either need a light box or some sunshine.
      (Ideally you want a light source of at least 10,000 lumens at 480nm (IIRC))
      This sets off another chain of chemical reactions that let your brain know that

    • by Sanians (2738917)

      Let me guess:

      You often wake up to go to the bathroom, only to find once you're there that you really didn't need to go that badly. (Remember when you were a kid and you'd wake up in the morning almost ready to burst? That's normal. Waking up several times a night to empty a half-full bladder is not.)

      Also, you sometimes have nightmares where you're running away from something, or doing anything that's physically exhausting, and then you wake up and breathe heavily for a while to catch your breath? (Guess

      • Not all ADHD folks are hyperactive. The "H" is common but not universal. Poor sleep can definitely cause a loss of ability to focus, though. It can also contribute to risk of stroke, heart attack, type 2 diabetes, and a lot of other problems. I wouldn't doubt that hyperactivity could be among those.

    • What you're describing is not insomnia, it sounds much more like a circadian rhythm disorder. I'm not just being pedantic, it's important to understand the differences between the two because the treatments can be significantly different. For instance, it's generally not wise with circadian disorders to medicate to sleep, the sleep you get won't be restful because your body is pretty much convinced that 1AM is a good time to be wide awake.

      A small dose of melatonin taken at the right time of day (some expe

  • I read the summary wrong at first and thought that it meant they "fixed" ADHD by participants taking meth. If that's the cure, I think I'd stick with being uncured.

    I'm not sure of the chemical makeup of the compound they are talking about versus the illegal drug. (Chemistry was one science class I always stunk at.) They might be somewhat-related with the name similarity. Perhaps someone can explain the difference?

    • by iggymanz (596061)

      I appreciate how movie instructs in the proper etiquette should the line of questioning become too uncomfortable or the questioned feel the inquisitor is learning of negative traits best left undisclosed: "My mother? Let me tell you about my mother!" *BLAM* *BLAM*

  • [citation needed] (Score:4, Interesting)

    by seebs (15766) on Friday August 15, 2014 @02:16PM (#47680373) Homepage

    I'd be interested in the basis for the claim about misdiagnosis being "common". I have known a number of people with ADHD who were misdiagnosed with something else. I don't think I've ever met anyone who got a misdiagnosis of not having ADHD.

    The quality of the anti-ADHD-diagnosis rants can be pretty much summed up by the fact that people are claiming that a stimulant drug which makes people twitchy is going to "drug people into zombified submission". It really is that blatantly stupid; there is nothing remotely like "zombified submission" on the table.

    • by jittles (1613415)

      I'd be interested in the basis for the claim about misdiagnosis being "common". I have known a number of people with ADHD who were misdiagnosed with something else. I don't think I've ever met anyone who got a misdiagnosis of not having ADHD.

      The quality of the anti-ADHD-diagnosis rants can be pretty much summed up by the fact that people are claiming that a stimulant drug which makes people twitchy is going to "drug people into zombified submission". It really is that blatantly stupid; there is nothing remotely like "zombified submission" on the table.

      It's kids being diagnosed with ADHD when the correct diagnosis is really poor parenting.

      • by seebs (15766)

        Yeah, I know what the allegation is. Where's the evidence? Where's the clinical studies?

        People love to assert that someone with a cognitive disability isn't really disabled, just "lazy". But that people enjoy asserting it doesn't make it true.

      • It's kids being diagnosed with ADHD when the correct diagnosis is really poor parenting.

        You're not a parent are you? I'd have a hard time calling anyone that didn't beat their kid a bad parent. That'd be like calling someone that fell off a bridge a bad sky diver. You do what you can, there's no way to do it right, and they landing's going to hurt no mater what you do.

  • This shouldn't really be news.

    One of the major ADHD tests is if you can control impulses in various situations.
    Impulse control is way, way harder, bordering on impossible for people with strong ADHD.

    I still remember my test for instance.

    I was supposed to press for every symbol that came up on the screen, except for X and Y.
    I couldn't help pressing for X as well.
    I literally said the equivalent of "fuck" each time, which made my psychiatrist laugh.

    This would be something similar.

  • Stop and think.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 15, 2014 @03:02PM (#47680805)

    The premise that over-diagnosis is a systemic problem is common, and has been propagated by the media, with very little actual scientific proof behind it.

    The national average is that 7.8% of children are diagnosed with ADHD and somewhere around half (depending on where you live) get prescribed medication. So the idea that we are diagnosing a whole generation of kids as having ADHD is ridiculous. The idea that we have a culture of medicating our kids unnecessarily is also ridiculous. The statistics simply don't bear this out. The CDC did a study that has been dramatically misinterpreted to create this perception.

    Here is the big article that most people reference when they say that there is a plague of over-diagnosing ADHD.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/01/health/more-diagnoses-of-hyperactivity-causing-concern.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

    First, they only reference ADHD's increase in the CDC study, when it wasn't the only one, nor was it the largest disorder having an increase in diagnosis. It was a 3% increase.

    Second, there are three corrections, only mentioned at the very bottom that change facts stated in the study. That should tell you something right there.

    Third, and increase is an increase, but they fill in the blanks as to the cause of the increase. My favorite is the change in the definition of ADHD, some media and researchers pose that the changing definition of ADHD has weakened its diagnostic criteria so it is going to be more common. But the DMS IV, the standard psych diagnostic manual in the U.S. hasn't had a change for ADHD in 20 years and the DSM V wasn't out yet, or not long enough to have an effect.

    Yes, ADHD diagnosis have increased, and yes so has the rate of medication being prescribed. But at the same rate, on average (some less, some more) than other childhood disorders. Additionally, the study merely referenced the increase in the number of diagnosis and prescription, not the amount of misdiagnosis or anything like that. The only studies that I know of that did that were severely flawed. One did a survey where they told the sample of Psychiatrists to make a diagnosis of a selection of cases, some which did not show all of the symptoms for ADHD and some did. But they told them to make a diagnosis, already biasing those participating towards making some diagnosis rather than none at all. The other was a world wide study that compared the DSM IV diagnostic guide to the cases that were diagnosed, the problem is much of the world doesn't use the DSM IV but a different resource entirely. So they were judging those diagnosing using and apples and oranges measuring stick.

    I of course, am not saying it never happens, clearly misdiagnosis does happen. And it may be more common with ADHD than with some other disorders. That could be due to big pharma wanting to schill pills, or it could be due to the very visible and noticeable nature of ADHD and it's commonality, meaning just the shear numbers increase the chances. It could be that ADHD has some similarities to behavior that is not ideal but not to the level of a disorder. It could be it is no worse than other cases of misdiagnosis. And to my mind, more likely, if it is happening more than other disorders, is because we need better diagnostics, which is what this research is about. No one is going to say that one test like this is the only thing needed to make such a diagnostic, not really. That is headline grabbing garbage that will never make it into a real serious clinical environment. No diagnostic manual is going to recommend a diagnosis based on one symptom or type of behavior, period.

    bluefoxlucid makes some good anecdotal points, but they are anecdotal, meaning they are one specific case, specific to that person. You cannot extrapolate anything out of it to the general populace. They had bad reactions to medicine, which unfortunately happens. I can't be used to make any judgements about the whole, however. Nor can it give us any insight into the usefulness of

    • by gurps_npc (621217)
      Maybe you are right. But you don't answer the real issues.

      Issue #1. I (and other people over 40) do not see a radical shift in adult behavior. That means either a) It is what used to be called 'a phase that the kid will grow out of', or b) the 'disease' is basically nothing new or that bad - just slightly bad behavior that we not as bad put a new label on it or c) It is over diagnosed despite what you think.

      Issue #2. Ritalin and the other drugs that affect ? They only work on some of the kids diag

  • Diagnosed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Charliemopps (1157495) on Friday August 15, 2014 @03:32PM (#47681053)

    I've got ADHD for real. My doctor used to joke that I was the only kid he knew of that definitively had it, the rest he was just pretty sure about. At the time they were heavily medicating children for it... much worse than they do now and my parents refused to have me walking around like a zombie. Like it or not that was probably the most instrumental decision my parents made in my upbringing. Without the medication, I was left to cope with the symptoms on my own. If given several tasks to complete, I'd spend hours bouncing from one to the other and never really start any of them. Eventually I learned to deal with it on my own but never really knew how until I got to talk about it with a few shrinks.

    What I did was learn a type of "Hyper focus" they described as common amongst the afflicted. I would drive all other thoughts from my mind, almost like a Buddhist, and then focus exclusively on my task. If I allowed other topics into my mind, I'd wander and lose track of what I was doing, so I instead learned not to let myself think about anything else. This skill has it's upsides I was told. I was able to grasp larger, more complex tasks because my mind was not preocupide with other things. It also had it's downside. I'd be so focused on the task at hand that if someone interupetted me I'd fly into a rage:
    Me:WHAT?!?!
    Wife: Dinners ready. Is programming the thermostat really that frustrating?
    Me: um... sorry? :-)

    I'm glad to see they may have a definitive test, and it seems superior drugs. I don't want to say I wish I had them... I wouldn't be me without ADHD, but I welcome any tools that help parents be more informed. I wouldn't give up being abnormal for the world, but I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy either.

  • Wait, so Pruitt Taylor Vince has ADHD?

    (no, just kidding, from imdb: "Has nystagmus, a condition which causes a person's eyes to move involuntarily." But he was who I thought about when reading the summary.)

  • Because then the pharmaceutical industry won't sell as many drugs.

Ernest asks Frank how long he has been working for the company. "Ever since they threatened to fire me."

Working...