| Literature DB >> 26199871 |
K J Woods1, E M Meintjes1, C D Molteno2, S W Jacobson3, J L Jacobson3.
Abstract
Number processing deficits are frequently seen in children prenatally exposed to alcohol. Although the parietal lobe, which is known to mediate several key aspects of number processing, has been shown to be structurally impaired in fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD), effects on functional activity in this region during number processing have not previously been investigated. This fMRI study of 49 children examined differences in activation associated with prenatal alcohol exposure in five key parietal regions involved in number processing, using tasks involving simple addition and magnitude comparison. Despite generally similar behavioral performance, in both tasks greater prenatal alcohol exposure was related to less activation in an anterior section of the right horizontal intraparietal sulcus known to mediate mental representation and manipulation of quantity. Children with fetal alcohol syndrome and partial fetal alcohol syndrome appeared to compensate for this deficit by increased activation of the angular gyrus during the magnitude comparison task.Entities:
Keywords: AA, absolute alcohol; ADHD, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; ANOVA, analysis of variance; ARND, alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorder; DD, developmental dyscalculia; EA, exact addition; EA_CTL, control block in the exact addition task; FAS, fetal alcohol syndrome; FASD, fetal alcohol spectrum disorders; Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders; Fetal alcohol syndrome; HE, heavily exposed; IPS, intraparietal sulcus; LSD, least-squares difference; Magnitude comparison; Number processing; PFAS, partial fetal alcohol syndrome; PJ, proximity judgment; PJ_CTL, control block in the proximity judgment task; PSPL, posterior superior parietal lobule; Parietal; Prenatal alcohol exposure; ROI, region of interest; TS, Turner syndrome; UCT, University of Cape Town; VBM, voxel-based morphometry; WISC-III, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Third Edition; fMRI
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26199871 PMCID: PMC4506983 DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2015.03.023
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuroimage Clin ISSN: 2213-1582 Impact factor: 4.881
Fig. 1Schematic of task design showing the format and timing for blocks of (A) exact addition trials and (B) control trials. The same format and timing were used for the proximity judgment task.
Fig. 2Regions identified in Dehaene's meta-analysis that were used as regions of interest in this study.
Sample characteristics (N = 65).
| FAS/PFAS | Heavy exposed | Control | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Absolute alcohol/day (oz) | 2.8 (2.1) | 2.1 (1.9) | 0.0 (0.0) | 19.90*** |
| Absolute alcohol/occasion (oz) | 6.5 (3.4) | 5.9 (5.4) | 0.1 (0.3) | 21.98*** |
| Frequency (days/week) | 2.9 (1.2) | 2.6 (1.8) | 0.0 (0.1) | 41.29*** |
| Maternal | ||||
| Parity | 2.6 (1.2) | 2.0 (1.0) | 2.1 (1.4) | 1.29 |
| Years of education | 6.7 (2.5) | 6.9 (2.4) | 8.5 (2.0) | 4.27* |
| Smoking during pregnancy (cigs/day) | 6.6 (5.1) | 12.1 (9.0) | 5.6 (7.1) | 4.99** |
| Mother's age at delivery | 26.3 (5.9) | 24.5 (5.5) | 24.0 (5.8) | 0.92 |
| Child | ||||
| Sex (% male) | 33.3 | 45.5 | 48.0 | 1.00 |
| Age at assessment | 10.1 (1.1) | 10.6 (1.3) | 10.2 (1.2) | 1.09 |
| Blood lead concentration (µg/dL) | 7.0 (3.6) | 5.2 (1.9) | 6.7 (2.6) | 2.56† |
| WISC Estimated Full Scale IQ score | 59.8 (10.5) | 67.9 (10.2) | 76.0 (11.0) | 12.25*** |
| Freedom from Distractibility | 74.4 (16.5) | 80.6 (10.4) | 87.4 (12.4) | 5.20** |
| Arithmetic | 4.4 (2.5) | 5.9 (2.6) | 6.9 (2.6) | 4.96** |
| Digit Span | 6.3 (3.7) | 7.0 (1.7) | 8.3 (2.9) | 2.80† |
| Coding | 4.6 (2.3) | 6.5 (2.1) | 6.8 (2.5) | 4.31* |
| Matrix Reasoning | 3.8 (2.1) | 4.6 (2.4) | 5.4 (2.3) | 2.38 |
| Block Design | 3.6 (2.1) | 5.5 (2.6) | 6.4 (3.3) | 5.24** |
| Symbol Search | 4.0 (2.2) | 4.7 (2.5) | 6.8 (2.9) | 6.86** |
| Similarities | 2.3 (2.0) | 3.7 (2.0) | 5.4 (2.4) | 11.48*** |
| Picture Completion | 4.7 (3.3) | 5.2 (3.0) | 6.1 (2.9) | 1.07 |
Means (SD).
†p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
Cont < FAS/PFAS, HE, both ps < 0.001.
Cont > FAS/PFAS, p = 0.012; cont > HE, p = 0.020.
HE > cont, p = 0.004; HE > FAS/PFAS, p = 0.022.
FAS/PFAS > HE, p = 0.042; cont > HE, p = 0.077.
Cont > FAS/PFAS, p = 0.001; cont > HE, p = 0.012; HE > FAS/PFAS, p = 0.019.
Cont > FAS/PFAS, p = 0.002; cont > HE, p = 0.082.
Cont > FAS/PFAS, p = 0.003; HE > FAS/PFAS, p = 0.067.
Cont > FAS/PFAS, p = 0.026.
Missing for 4 FAS/PFAS, 1 HE, and 4 controls. cont > FAS/PFAS, p = 0.008; HE > FAS/PFAS, p = 0.017.
Missing for 2 FAS/PFAS, 1 HE, and 3 controls.
Missing for 1 control. cont > FAS/PFAS, p = 0.002; HE > FAS/PFAS, p = 0.039.
Cont > FAS/PFAS, p = 0.001; cont > HE, p = 0.009.
Cont > FAS/PFAS, p < 0.001; cont > HE, p = 0.006; HE > FAS/PFAS, p = 0.051.
Missing for 1 control.
Comparison of behavioral performance on proximity judgment and exact addition by diagnostic group.
| FAS/PFAS | HE | Control | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | 18 | 22 | 25 | ||
| Age | 10.5 (1.0) | 10.6 (1.3) | 10.2 (1.2) | 1.09 | 1.09 |
| Accuracy (% correct) | 58.0 (29.8) | 85.8 (14.3) | 88.0 (11.8) | 14.94** | 12.75** |
| | 11 | 18 | 18 | ||
| Age | 10.5 (1.0) | 10.9 (1.2) | 10.5 (1.2) | 0.66 | 0.66 |
| Trials attempted | 33.9 (5.6) | 38.9 (8.2) | 39.3 (6.1) | 2.42†, | 2.35 |
| Trials correct | 29.1 (4.4) | 32.9 (7.6) | 35.2 (5.2) | 3.40*, | 4.56* |
| Accuracy (% correct) | 86.3 (8.6) | 84.3 (9.1) | 90.1 (9.9) | 1.73 | 2.17 |
| | 18 | 22 | 25 | ||
| Age | 10.5 (1.0) | 10.6 (1.3) | 10.2 (1.2) | 1.09 | 1.09 |
| Accuracy (% correct) | 66.3 (33.8) | 81.8 (29.2) | 87.8 (19.5) | 3.30*, | 2.63† |
| | 8 | 13 | 17 | ||
| Age | 10.6 (1.0) | 11.2 (1.2) | 10.5 (1.1) | 1.57 | 1.57 |
| Trials attempted | 28.8 (7.7) | 34.5 (7.3) | 30.4 (8.7) | 1.56 | 1.56 |
| Trials correct | 24.4 (7.4) | 30.5 (7.6) | 27.1 (9.0) | 1.47 | 0.98 |
| Accuracy (% correct) | 84.7 (12.1) | 88.2 (9.8) | 88.3 (7.4) | 0.45 | 0.56 |
Values are means (standard deviation).
† p < 0.10; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.001.
Adjusted for potential confounders.
Controlled for child's age.
Controlled for mother's age.
Controlled for lead exposure.
Controlled for mother's smoking.
Cont, HE > FAS/PFAS, both ps < 0.001.
Cont > FAS/PFAS, p = 0.047; HE > FAS/PFAS, p = 0.062.
Cont > FAS/PFAS, p = 0.012.
Cont > FAS/PFAS, p = 0.014; HE > FAS/PFAS, p = 0.079.
Relation of degree of prenatal alcohol exposure to behavioral performance on proximity judgment and exact addition.
| Absolute alcohol per day | Absolute alcohol per day | Absolute alcohol per occasion | Absolute alcohol per occasion | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (% correct) | 65 | −0.39**** | −0.36*** | −0.33** | −0.32*** |
| Trials attempted | 47 | −0.13 | −0.12 | −0.15 | −0.16 |
| Trials correct | 47 | −0.30* | −0.29* | −0.30* | −0.31* |
| Accuracy (% correct) | 47 | −0.32* | −0.35* | −0.29* | −0.31† |
| Accuracy (% correct) | 65 | −0.22† | −0.18 | −0.17 | −0.15 |
| Trials attempted | 38 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.10 | 0.10 |
| Trials correct | 38 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.03 | −0.01 |
| Accuracy (% correct) | 38 | −0.21 | −0.37† | −0.15 | −0.26 |
† p < 0.10; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.005; **** p < 0.001.
Controlled for child's age.
Controlled for mother's age.
Controlled for lead exposure.
Controlled for mother's smoking.
Fig. 3Percent signal change during proximity judgment compared to the control task in the left angular gyrus in each of the diagnostic groups (N = 47). Values are means ± standard error.
Relation of extent of prenatal alcohol exposure to the percent signal change compared to a control task in the a priori number processing regions of interest during (a) proximity judgment and (b) exact addition.
| Talairach coordinates | Absolute alcohol per day | Absolute alcohol per day | Absolute alcohol per occasion | Absolute alcohol per occasion | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R posterior superior parietal lobule | 46 | 15, –63, 56 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.12 | 0.12 |
| L posterior superior parietal lobule | 46 | −22, −68, 56 | −0.08 | −0.02 | −0.13 | −0.06 |
| L angular gyrus | 47 | −41, −66, 36 | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0.18 | 0.18 |
| R horizontal intraparietal sulcus | 47 | 41, −47, 48 | −0.36 | −0.36 | −0.37 | −0.37 |
| L horizontal intraparietal sulcus | 46 | −44, −48, 47 | −0.13 | −0.13 | −0.16 | −0.16 |
| R posterior superior parietal lobule | 38 | 15, −63, 56 | 0.25 | 0.02 | 0.21 | 0.01 |
| L posterior superior parietal lobule | 37 | −22, −68, 56 | −0.12 | −0.36 | −0.12 | −0.32 |
| L angular gyrus | 38 | −41, −66, 36 | −0.29 | −0.29 | −0.31 | −0.31 |
| R horizontal intraparietal sulcus | 37 | 41, −47, 48 | −0.48 | −0.49 | −0.43 | −0.46 |
| L horizontal intraparietal sulcus | 38 | −44, −48, 47 | −0.05 | −0.05 | 0.04 | 0.04 |
p < 0.10.
p < 0.05,
p < 0.01.
p < 0.005.
Controlled for mother's grade.
Controlled for maternal smoking.
Controlled for mother's age.
Controlled for parity.
Fig. 4Relation of absolute alcohol/day to percent signal change in the right horizontal intraparietal sulcus for PJ (a) and EA (b), respectively.
Fig. 5Relation of percent signal change in the left posterior superior parietal lobule during proximity judgment to the number of sums answered correctly inside the scanner (FAS/PFAS: R2 = 0.57; HE: R2 = 0.16; control: R2 = 0.10).