Gabriel C Araujo1, Tanya N Antonini2, Vicki Anderson3, Kathryn A Vannatta4, Christina G Salley5, Erin D Bigler6, H Gerry Taylor7, Cynthia Gerhardt4, Kenneth Rubin8, Maureen Dennis9, Warren Lo10, Mark T Mackay11, Anne Gordon12, Christine Hajek Koterba13, Alison Gomes14, Mardee Greenham15, Keith Owen Yeates16. 1. 1Department of Psychology,St. Louis Children's Hospital,St. Louis,Missouri. 2. 2Section of Psychology,Baylor College of Medicine/Texas Children's Hospital,Houston,Texas. 3. 3Murdoch Children's Research Institute,Department of Psychology,The Royal Children's Hospital,School of Psychological Sciences,The University of Melbourne,Parkville,Victoria,Australia. 4. 4The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital,Department of Pediatrics,The Ohio State University,Columbus,Ohio. 5. 5Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,New York University School of Medicine,New York City,New York. 6. 6Department of Psychological Science and Neuroscience Center,Brigham Young University,Provo,Utah. 7. 7Department of Pediatrics,Case Western Reserve University,Cleveland,Ohio. 8. 8Department of Human Development and Quantitative Methodology,University of Maryland,College Park,Maryland. 9. 9Program in Neuroscience and Mental Health,The Hospital for Sick Children,Toronto,Ontario,Canada. 10. 10Division of Neurology,Department of Pediatrics,The Ohio State University and Nationwide Children's Hospital,Columbus,Ohio. 11. 11Department of Neurology,The Royal Children's Hospital,Melbourne,Australia, andDepartment of Paediatrics,University of Melbourne,Parkville,Australia. 12. 12Paediatric Neurology,Evelina London Children's Hospital, andInstitute of Psychology,Psychiatry & Neuroscience,Kings College London,London,United Kingdom. 13. 13Pediatric Psychology and Neuropsychology,Nationwide Children's Hospital,Columbus,Ohio. 14. 14Clinical Sciences,Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, andSchool of Psychological Sciences,Monash University,Melbourne,Australia. 15. 15Clinical Sciences,Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, andSchool of Psychological Sciences,University of Melbourne,Melbourne,Australia. 16. 16Department of Psychology,Alberta Children's Hospital Research Institute, andHotchkiss Brain Institute,University of Calgary,Calgary,Alberta,Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study examined whether children with distinct brain disorders show different profiles of strengths and weaknesses in executive functions, and differ from children without brain disorder. METHODS: Participants were children with traumatic brain injury (N=82; 8-13 years of age), arterial ischemic stroke (N=36; 6-16 years of age), and brain tumor (N=74; 9-18 years of age), each with a corresponding matched comparison group consisting of children with orthopedic injury (N=61), asthma (N=15), and classmates without medical illness (N=68), respectively. Shifting, inhibition, and working memory were assessed, respectively, using three Test of Everyday Attention: Children's Version (TEA-Ch) subtests: Creature Counting, Walk-Don't-Walk, and Code Transmission. Comparison groups did not differ in TEA-Ch performance and were merged into a single control group. Profile analysis was used to examine group differences in TEA-Ch subtest scaled scores after controlling for maternal education and age. RESULTS: As a whole, children with brain disorder performed more poorly than controls on measures of executive function. Relative to controls, the three brain injury groups showed significantly different profiles of executive functions. Importantly, post hoc tests revealed that performance on TEA-Ch subtests differed among the brain disorder groups. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that different childhood brain disorders result in distinct patterns of executive function deficits that differ from children without brain disorder. Implications for clinical practice and future research are discussed. (JINS, 2017, 23, 529-538).
OBJECTIVES: This study examined whether children with distinct brain disorders show different profiles of strengths and weaknesses in executive functions, and differ from children without brain disorder. METHODS:Participants were children with traumatic brain injury (N=82; 8-13 years of age), arterial ischemic stroke (N=36; 6-16 years of age), and brain tumor (N=74; 9-18 years of age), each with a corresponding matched comparison group consisting of children with orthopedic injury (N=61), asthma (N=15), and classmates without medical illness (N=68), respectively. Shifting, inhibition, and working memory were assessed, respectively, using three Test of Everyday Attention: Children's Version (TEA-Ch) subtests: Creature Counting, Walk-Don't-Walk, and Code Transmission. Comparison groups did not differ in TEA-Ch performance and were merged into a single control group. Profile analysis was used to examine group differences in TEA-Ch subtest scaled scores after controlling for maternal education and age. RESULTS: As a whole, children with brain disorder performed more poorly than controls on measures of executive function. Relative to controls, the three brain injury groups showed significantly different profiles of executive functions. Importantly, post hoc tests revealed that performance on TEA-Ch subtests differed among the brain disorder groups. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that different childhood brain disorders result in distinct patterns of executive function deficits that differ from children without brain disorder. Implications for clinical practice and future research are discussed. (JINS, 2017, 23, 529-538).
Authors: Torun G Finnanger; Stein Andersson; Mathilde Chevignard; Gøril O Johansen; Anne E Brandt; Ruth E Hypher; Kari Risnes; Torstein B Rø; Jan Stubberud Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2022-02-03 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Matthew J McLaughlin; Eric Caliendo; Ryan Lowder; William D Watson; Brad Kurowski; Katherine T Baum; Laura S Blackwell; Christine H Koterba; Kristen R Hoskinson; Sarah J Tlustos; Kanecia O Zimmerman; Sudhin A Shah; Stacy J Suskauer Journal: J Head Trauma Rehabil Date: 2021-07-26 Impact factor: 3.117