Frontal volume as a potential source of the comorbidity between attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and reading disorders.

Prefrontal volume reductions commonly are demonstrated in ADHD, but the literature examining prefrontal volume in reading disorders (RD) is scant despite their also having executive functioning (EF) deficits. Furthermore, only a few anatomical studies have examined the frontal lobes in comorbid RD/ADHD, though they have EF deficits similar to RD and ADHD. Hence, we examined frontal gyri volume in children with RD, ADHD, RD/ADHD and controls, as well as their relationship to EF for gyri found to differ between groups. We found right inferior frontal (RIF) volume was smaller in ADHD, and smaller volume was related to worse behavioral regulation. Left superior frontal (LSF) volume was larger in RD than ADHD, and its size was negatively related to basic reading ability. Left middle frontal (LMF) volume was largest in RD/ADHD overall. Further, its volume was not related to basic reading nor behavioral regulation but was related to worse attentional control, suggesting some specificity in its EF relationship. When examining hypotheses on the etiology of RD/ADHD, RD/ADHD was commensurate with ADHD in RIF volume and both RD and ADHD in LSF volume (being midway between the groups), consistent with the common etiology hypothesis. Nevertheless, they also had an additional gyrus affected: LMF, consistent with the cognitive subtype hypothesis in its specificity to RD/ADHD. The few other frontal aMRI studies on RD/ADHD supported both hypotheses as well. Given this, future research should continue to focus on frontal morphology in its endeavors to find neurobiological contributors to the comorbidity between RD and ADHD.

[Formula: see text]Differences in memory functioning between children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and/or focal epilepsy.

Prior research has shown that attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and epilepsy are frequently comorbid and that both disorders are associated with various attention and memory problems. Nonetheless, limited research has been conducted comparing the two disorders in one sample to determine unique versus shared deficits. Hence, we investigated differences in working memory (WM) and short-term and delayed recall between children with ADHD, focal epilepsy of mixed foci, comorbid ADHD/epilepsy and controls. Participants were compared on the Core subtests and the Picture Locations subtest of the Children's Memory Scale (CMS). Results indicated that children with ADHD displayed intact verbal WM and long-term memory (LTM), as well as intact performance on most aspects of short-term memory (STM). They performed worse than controls on Numbers Forward and Picture Locations, suggesting problems with focused attention and simple span for visual-spatial material. Conversely, children with epilepsy displayed poor focused attention and STM regardless of the modality assessed, which affected encoding into LTM. The only loss over time was found for passages (Stories). WM was intact. Children with comorbid ADHD/epilepsy displayed focused attention and STM/LTM problems consistent with both disorders, having the lowest scores across the four groups. Hence, focused attention and visual-spatial span appear to be affected in both disorders, whereas additional STM/encoding problems are specific to epilepsy. Children with comorbid ADHD/epilepsy have deficits consistent with both disorders, with slight additive effects. This study suggests that attention and memory testing should be a regular part of the evaluation of children with epilepsy and ADHD.

There are laterality effects in memory functioning in children/adolescents with focal epilepsy.

In a sample of individuals with childhood focal epilepsy, children/adolescents with left hemisphere foci outperformed those with right foci on both measures of nonverbal learning. Participants with left foci performed worse than controls on paired associate delayed recall and semantic memory, and they had greater laterality effects in IQ. Participants with right foci performed worse than controls on delayed facial recognition. Both groups displayed reduced focused attention and poor passage retention over time. Although participants with bilateral foci displayed poor learning and lower IQ than controls, they did not have worse impairment than those with a unilateral focus.

Reading performance is predicted by more than phonological processing.

WE COMPARED THREE PHONOLOGICAL PROCESSING COMPONENTS (PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS, RAPID AUTOMATIZED NAMING AND PHONOLOGICAL MEMORY), VERBAL WORKING MEMORY, AND ATTENTION CONTROL IN TERMS OF HOW WELL THEY PREDICT THE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF READING: word recognition, pseudoword decoding, fluency and comprehension, in a mixed sample of 182 children ages 8-12 years. Participants displayed a wide range of reading ability and attention control. Multiple regression was used to determine how well the phonological processing components, verbal working memory, and attention control predict reading performance. All equations were highly significant. Phonological memory predicted word identification and decoding. In addition, phonological awareness and rapid automatized naming predicted every aspect of reading assessed, supporting the notion that phonological processing is a core contributor to reading ability. Nonetheless, phonological processing was not the only predictor of reading performance. Verbal working memory predicted fluency, decoding and comprehension, and attention control predicted fluency. Based upon our results, when using Baddeley's model of working memory it appears that the phonological loop contributes to basic reading ability, whereas the central executive contributes to fluency and comprehension, along with decoding. Attention control was of interest as some children with ADHD have poor reading ability even if it is not sufficiently impaired to warrant diagnosis. Our finding that attention control predicts reading fluency is consistent with prior research which showed sustained attention plays a role in fluency. Taken together, our results suggest that reading is a highly complex skill that entails more than phonological processing to perform well.