Abstract

Introduction: There is significant overlap in the type of structural language impairments exhibited by children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This similarity suggests that the cognitive impairment(s) contributing to the structural language deficits in ASD and ADHD may be shared. Previous studies have speculated that procedural memory deficits may be the shared cognitive impairment. The procedural deficit hypothesis (PDH) argues that language deficits can be explained by differences in the neural structures underlying the procedural memory network. This hypothesis is based on the premise that the neural structures comprising the procedural network support language learning. In this study, we aimed to test the PDH in children with ASD, ADHD, and typical development (TD).Methods: One hundred and sixty-three participants (ages 10–21): 91 with ASD, 26 with ADHD, and 46 with TD, completed standardized measures of cognitive and language ability as well as structural magnetic resonance imaging. We compared the structural language abilities, the neural structures underlying the procedural memory network, and the relationship between structural language and neural structure across diagnostic groups.Results: Our analyses revealed that while the structural language abilities differed across ASD, ADHD, and TD groups, the thickness, area, and volume of the structures supporting the procedural memory network were not significantly different between diagnostic groups. Also, several neural structures were associated with structural language abilities across diagnostic groups. Only two of these structures, the inferior frontal gyrus, and the left superior parietal gyrus, are known to be linked to the procedural memory network.Conclusions: The inferior frontal gyrus and the left superior parietal gyrus, have well-established roles in language learning independent of their role as part of the procedural memory system. Other structures such as the caudate and cerebellum, with critical roles in the procedural memory network, were not associated with structural language abilities across diagnostic groups. It is unclear whether the procedural memory network plays a fundamental role in language learning in ASD, ADHD, and TD.

Highlights

  • There is significant overlap in the type of structural language impairments exhibited by children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)

  • This study aimed to explore the brain-behavior associations outlined by the procedural deficit hypothesis (PDH) (Ullman and Pierpont, 2005) in children with ASD, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and typical development (TD), which suggests that differences in the neural structures underlying procedural memory contribute to the structural language impairments observed in children with neurodevelopmental disorders including ASD and ADHD

  • We found differences in receptive and expressive structural language abilities but did not find differences in the neural structures underlying the procedural memory network in ASD, ADHD, or TD

Read more

Summary

Introduction

There is significant overlap in the type of structural language impairments exhibited by children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This similarity suggests that the cognitive impairment(s) contributing to the structural language deficits in ASD and ADHD may be shared. The procedural deficit hypothesis (PDH) argues that language deficits can be explained by differences in the neural structures underlying the procedural memory network. ADHD is one of the most commonly diagnosed neurodevelopmental disorders in children (Polancyzk et al, 2007; Redmond, 2016) and is characterized by impulsivity, inattention, and hyperactivity that negatively impact daily living (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Among the comorbidities reported in ADHD, language impairment is one of the most commonly reported co-occurring conditions (Mueller and Tomblin, 2012; Sciberras et al, 2014)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call