Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2008
Distinct information processing characteristics in dyslexia and ADHD during a covert orienting task: an event-related potential study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dhar Monica, Been Pieter H, Minderaa Ruud B, Althaus Monika
Аннотация
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.
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.