Monica Dhar1, Pieter H Been, Ruud B Minderaa, Monika Althaus. 1. BCN Neuroimaging Center, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 2, 9713 AW Groningen, The Netherlands. m.dhar@med.umcg.nl
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A visuo-spatial orienting task was used to investigate the individual and joint contribution of the presence of dyslexia and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) to information processing. METHODS: Sixteen control, 17 dyslexic, 16 ADHD, and 15 comorbid adults performed the task, comprising a valid, invalid, and no-cue condition. Performance measures were errors and reaction time (RT). A negative potential in response to cues and targets (N2), and a positive potential in response to targets (P3) were derived from the EEG. A 2x2 design was used with the factors dyslexic/non-dyslexic, and ADHD/non-ADHD. RESULTS: Dyslexic participants demonstrated a smaller cue-related N2, yet a greater target-related N2 in the valid condition. ADHD participants were discriminated by the P3 difference between the invalid and valid conditions. Comorbids differed from ADHD mainly in invalid-valid RT, and were similar to dyslexics in target N2 processing. CONCLUSIONS: Dyslexics were impaired in early information processing, and participants with ADHD differed for later processing stages. SIGNIFICANCE: This is the first ERP study of attentional processes in dyslexia to incorporate an ADHD and a comorbid group. Its results may contribute to differentiation of these clinical groups.
OBJECTIVE: A visuo-spatial orienting task was used to investigate the individual and joint contribution of the presence of dyslexia and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) to information processing. METHODS: Sixteen control, 17 dyslexic, 16 ADHD, and 15 comorbid adults performed the task, comprising a valid, invalid, and no-cue condition. Performance measures were errors and reaction time (RT). A negative potential in response to cues and targets (N2), and a positive potential in response to targets (P3) were derived from the EEG. A 2x2 design was used with the factors dyslexic/non-dyslexic, and ADHD/non-ADHD. RESULTS: Dyslexic participants demonstrated a smaller cue-related N2, yet a greater target-related N2 in the valid condition. ADHDparticipants were discriminated by the P3 difference between the invalid and valid conditions. Comorbids differed from ADHD mainly in invalid-valid RT, and were similar to dyslexics in target N2 processing. CONCLUSIONS: Dyslexics were impaired in early information processing, and participants with ADHD differed for later processing stages. SIGNIFICANCE: This is the first ERP study of attentional processes in dyslexia to incorporate an ADHD and a comorbid group. Its results may contribute to differentiation of these clinical groups.
Authors: Tehila Nugiel; Mary Abbe Roe; W Patrick Taylor; Paul T Cirino; Sharon R Vaughn; Jack M Fletcher; Jenifer Juranek; Jessica A Church Journal: Cortex Date: 2018-11-16 Impact factor: 4.027
Authors: Venke Arntsberg Grane; Jan Ferenc Brunner; Tor Endestad; Ida Emilia S Aasen; Juri Kropotov; Robert Thomas Knight; Anne-Kristin Solbakk Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-07-22 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mei Hung Chi; Ching-Lin Chu; I Hui Lee; Yi-Ting Hsieh; Ko Chin Chen; Po See Chen; Yen Kuang Yang Journal: Clin Psychopharmacol Neurosci Date: 2019-11-20 Impact factor: 2.582