BACKGROUND: Chromosome 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11.2DS) results from a 1.5- to 3-megabase deletion on the long arm of chromosome 22 and occurs in approximately 1 in 4000 live births. Previous studies indicate that children with 22q11.2DS are impaired on tasks involving spatial attention. However, the degree to which these impairments are due to volitionally generated (endogenous) or reflexive (exogenous) orienting of attention is unclear. Additionally, the efficacy of these component attention processes throughout child development in 22q11.2DS has yet to be examined. METHODS: Here we compared the performance of a wide age range (7 to 14 years) of children with 22q11.2DS to typically developing (TD) children on a comprehensive visual cueing paradigm to dissociate the contributions of endogenous and exogenous attentional impairments. Paired and two-sample t-tests were used to compare outcome measures within a group or between groups. Additionally, repeated measures regression models were fit to the data in order to examine effects of age on performance. RESULTS: We found that children with 22q11.2DS were impaired on a cueing task with an endogenous cue, but not on the same task with an exogenous cue. Additionally, it was younger children exclusively who were impaired on endogenous cueing when compared to age-matched TD children. Older children with 22q11.2DS performed comparably to age-matched TD peers on the endogenous cueing task. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that endogenous but not exogenous orienting of attention is selectively impaired in children with 22q11.2DS. Additionally, the age effect on cueing in children with 22q11.2DS suggests a possible altered developmental trajectory of endogenous cueing.
BACKGROUND: Chromosome 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11.2DS) results from a 1.5- to 3-megabase deletion on the long arm of chromosome 22 and occurs in approximately 1 in 4000 live births. Previous studies indicate that children with 22q11.2DS are impaired on tasks involving spatial attention. However, the degree to which these impairments are due to volitionally generated (endogenous) or reflexive (exogenous) orienting of attention is unclear. Additionally, the efficacy of these component attention processes throughout child development in 22q11.2DS has yet to be examined. METHODS: Here we compared the performance of a wide age range (7 to 14 years) of children with 22q11.2DS to typically developing (TD) children on a comprehensive visual cueing paradigm to dissociate the contributions of endogenous and exogenous attentional impairments. Paired and two-sample t-tests were used to compare outcome measures within a group or between groups. Additionally, repeated measures regression models were fit to the data in order to examine effects of age on performance. RESULTS: We found that children with 22q11.2DS were impaired on a cueing task with an endogenous cue, but not on the same task with an exogenous cue. Additionally, it was younger children exclusively who were impaired on endogenous cueing when compared to age-matched TD children. Older children with 22q11.2DS performed comparably to age-matched TD peers on the endogenous cueing task. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that endogenous but not exogenous orienting of attention is selectively impaired in children with 22q11.2DS. Additionally, the age effect on cueing in children with 22q11.2DS suggests a possible altered developmental trajectory of endogenous cueing.
Authors: W R Kates; C P Burnette; E W Jabs; J Rutberg; A M Murphy; M Grados; M Geraghty; W E Kaufmann; G D Pearlson Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2001-04-15 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Linda E Campbell; Eileen Daly; Fiona Toal; Angela Stevens; Rayna Azuma; Marco Catani; Virginia Ng; Therese van Amelsvoort; Xavier Chitnis; William Cutter; Declan G M Murphy; Kieran C Murphy Journal: Brain Date: 2006-03-28 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: T van Amelsvoort; E Daly; D Robertson; J Suckling; V Ng; H Critchley; M J Owen; J Henry; K C Murphy; D G Murphy Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 9.319
Authors: Therese van Amelsvoort; Jayne Henry; Robin Morris; Michael Owen; Don Linszen; Kieran Murphy; Declan Murphy Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2004-10-01 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Tony J Simon; Zhongle Wu; Brian Avants; Hui Zhang; James C Gee; Glenn T Stebbins Journal: Behav Brain Funct Date: 2008-06-17 Impact factor: 3.759
Authors: Julia A Scott; Naomi Goodrich-Hunsaker; Kristopher Kalish; Aaron Lee; Michael R Hunsaker; Cynthia M Schumann; Owen T Carmichael; Tony J Simon Journal: J Psychiatry Neurosci Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 6.186
Authors: Ling M Wong; Naomi J Goodrich-Hunsaker; Yingratana A McLennan; Flora Tassone; Susan M Rivera; Tony J Simon Journal: J Neurodev Disord Date: 2014-12-11 Impact factor: 4.025
Authors: Andrea I Quintero; Elliott A Beaton; Danielle J Harvey; Judith L Ross; Tony J Simon Journal: J Neurodev Disord Date: 2014-03-14 Impact factor: 4.025
Authors: Abbie M Popa; Joshua R Cruz; Ling M Wong; Danielle J Harvey; Kathleen Angkustsiri; Ingrid N Leckliter; Koraly Perez-Edgar; Tony J Simon Journal: Am J Intellect Dev Disabil Date: 2019-11