2019
DOI: 10.1002/hbm.24552
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comorbidity of reading disabilities and ADHD: Structural and functional brain characteristics

Abstract: Reading disabilities (RD) and attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are two of the most common developmental disorders. RD and ADHD frequently co‐occur, which raises questions about how the disorders interact and to what extent they can be differentiated. To date, the underlying neural mechanisms leading to RD–ADHD comorbidity (COM) are not understood. In this study, structural and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) were combined with comprehensive behavioral testing in order to characteriz… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
54
1
5

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 62 publications
(69 citation statements)
references
References 158 publications
(335 reference statements)
5
54
1
5
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, the present study provides evidence for the shared cognitive deficit model in the early processing stage and for the distinguished cognitive deficit model in the late processing stage. We agree that a single model was not enough to explain the causes of comorbid DD and ADHD ( Pennington, 2006 ; Willcutt et al, 2010 ), and multiple models may apply to different processing stages ( Langer et al, 2019 ). The findings of the current study are important for the contribution to investigate visual search and lexical processing in clinical groups like comorbidity of ADHD and other disabilities, showing eye-movement measures may be helpful in the diagnostic procedure of comorbidity in the future.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…Therefore, the present study provides evidence for the shared cognitive deficit model in the early processing stage and for the distinguished cognitive deficit model in the late processing stage. We agree that a single model was not enough to explain the causes of comorbid DD and ADHD ( Pennington, 2006 ; Willcutt et al, 2010 ), and multiple models may apply to different processing stages ( Langer et al, 2019 ). The findings of the current study are important for the contribution to investigate visual search and lexical processing in clinical groups like comorbidity of ADHD and other disabilities, showing eye-movement measures may be helpful in the diagnostic procedure of comorbidity in the future.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…The experimental and the control tasks were administered in separate runs, as an initial pilot study showed that the youngest participants (62.2–81.6 months) confused the two tasks when they were interleaving within the same run (Raschle, Zuk, Ortiz‐Mantilla, et al, ). This task has been used by our group numerous times (e.g., Langer, Benjamin, Becker, & Gaab, ; Powers, Wang, Beach, Sideridis, & Gaab, ; Raschle et al, , ; Yu et al, , Zuk et al, ), and several other studies have adapted this design for young pediatric populations (e.g., Dębska et al, , ). The order of the two runs was counterbalanced across participants (see more details in Raschle et al, , ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This symptom burden can impact cognitive, academic, and social-emotional processes ( Chacko et al, 2014 , Cortese, 2012 , Nigg et al, 2005 , Voeller, 2004 ). ADHD is highly comorbid with learning difficulties ( Langer et al, 2019 ; Willcutt et al, 2010 ), and some individuals with ADHD have impairments in executive functions (EFs) ( Biederman, 2003 , Kofler et al, 2018 , Nigg et al, 2005 , Roberts et al, 2017 ). EFs support goal-oriented behaviors and comprise regulatory processes across several domains such as cognitive flexibility, working memory, and inhibition ( Diamond, 2013 , Miyake and Friedman, 2012 ) and are vital in the transition from immature to mature cognition and behaviors ( Diamond, 2013 , Miyake and Friedman, 2012 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%