January 14, 2022
Inhibitory control is an essential cognitive control function whereby the prefrontal cortex blocks planned motor actions or interrupts motor actions already initiated by other parts of the brain. For example, someone might instinctually reach for a candy bar but then put it back upon thinking that eating it would conflict with a higher-level goal of cutting down on sugar consumption. Impairment of inhibitory control is a known characteristic of several psychiatric disorders, including ADHD.
Any generally safe treatment with the ability to at least partially reverse such impairment would therefore be useful. Researchers are currently experimenting with transcranial direct current stimulation, a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that uses a weak electrical current to stimulate specific regions of the brain.
What, then, do we know so far about its potential effectiveness for improving inhibitory control?
A team of experts at the University of Tübingen in Germany conducted a comprehensive search of the peer-reviewed medical literature to find out. They then performed a meta-analysis of 45 studies with a combined total of over 1,600 participants. All but four of the studies used sham or other active controls.
The overall meta-analysis found a significant but small improvement in response inhibition. But it also found evidence of publication bias. Adjusting for publication bias reduced the effect size in half, to a tiny but still significant improvement.
The meta-analysis relied on two behavioral tasks that require inhibitory control to measure response inhibition: the go-/no-task, and the stop-signal task. Separating these, there was no significant improvement in the go/no-go task performance. All the improvement was concentrated on the stop-signal task.
The authors noted, "A potential limitation of this meta-analysis is that we could not exhaustively model-dependent relationships between moderator variables (e.g., tDCS polarity and electrode placement)," and "Further high-quality studies are needed to investigate potential interactions between technical and functional parameters in tDCS research."
Philipp A.Schroeder, Tobias Schwippel, Ines Wolz, Jennifer Svaldi, "Meta-Analysis Of The Effects Of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation On Inhibitory Control," BrainStimulation(2020),https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2020.05.006.
In a recent study, researchers delved into the complex interplay of cognitive processes and eye movements in children with dyslexia and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Their findings shed light on predictive models for reading outcomes in these children compared to typical readers.
The study involved 59 children: 19 typical readers, 21 with ADHD, and 19 with developmental dyslexia (DD), all in the 4th grade and around 9 years old on average. Each group underwent thorough neuropsychological and linguistic assessments to understand their psycholinguistic profiles.
During the study, participants engaged in a silent reading task where the text underwent lexical manipulation. Researchers then analyzed eye movement data alongside cognitive factors like memory, attention, and visual processes.
Using multinomial logistic regression, the researchers evaluated predictive models based on three key measures: a linguistic model focusing on phonological awareness, rapid naming, and reading fluency; a cognitive neuropsychological model incorporating memory, attention, and visual processes; and an additive model combining lexical word properties with eye-tracking data, specifically examining word frequency and length effects.
By integrating eye movement data with cognitive factors, the researchers enhanced their ability to predict the development of dyslexia or ADHD, in comparison to typically developing readers. This approach significantly improved the accuracy of predicting reading outcomes in children with learning disabilities.
These findings have profound implications for understanding and addressing reading challenges in children. By considering both cognitive processes and eye movement patterns, educators and clinicians can develop more effective interventions tailored to the specific needs of children with dyslexia and ADHD.
The Study Setup
The researchers recruited children aged 6-12 years diagnosed with ASD and/or ADHD, along with their non-ASD/ADHD siblings and the unrelated non-ASD/ADHD volunteers. The diagnoses were confirmed using standardized assessments like the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-2 (ADOS-2). The study looked at gut microbial diversity using advanced DNA extraction and sequencing techniques, comparing alpha-diversity indices (which reflect the variety and evenness of microbial species within each gut sample) across different groups. They also assessed dietary diversity through standardized questionnaires.
Key Findings
The study included 98 subjects, comprising children with ASD, ADHD, both ASD and ADHD, their non-ASD/ADHD siblings, and the unrelated controls. Here's what they discovered:
What Does This Mean?
The study highlights intriguing connections between gut microbiota and neurodevelopmental disorders like ASD and ADHD. The lower gut microbial diversity observed in children with ASD points towards potential links between gut health and the pathophysiology of ASD. Understanding these connections is crucial for developing targeted therapeutic interventions.
Implications and Future Directions
This research underscores the importance of considering gut microbiota in the context of neurodevelopmental disorders. Moving forward, future studies should account for factors like co-occurrence of ASD and ADHD, as well as carefully control for dietary influences. This will help unravel the complex interplay between gut microbiota, diet, and neurodevelopmental disorders, paving the way for innovative treatments and interventions.
In summary, studies like this shed light on the intricate relationship between our gut health, diet, and brain function. By unraveling these connections, researchers are opening new avenues for understanding and potentially treating conditions like ASD and ADHD.
A commonly reported risk associated with ADHD medication is reduced growth in height. But studies to date have generally not adequately described or measured possible confounders, such as genetic factors, prenatal factors, or socioeconomic factors. What if ADHD were associated with reduced height even in the absence of medications?
An international study team explored this question by performing a nationwide population study comparing data from before (1968-1991) and after (1992-2020) the adoption of stimulant therapy for ADHD in Sweden.
The country’s single-payer health insurance system that connects patient records with all other national registers through unique personal identification numbers makes such analysis possible. Sweden also has military service conscription, which records the heights of 18-year-old males.
The participants were all 14,268 Swedish males with a diagnosis of ADHD who were drafted into military service at any time from 1968 through 2020.
Up to five non-ADHD controls were identified for each ADHD case, matched by sex (they had to be male), birth year, and county. The total number of controls was 71,339.
Among 34,586 participants in the period before adoption of stimulant medications (1968-1991), those diagnosed with ADHD had roughly 30% greater odds of being shorter than normal (166-172 vs. 173-185 cm) than typically developing controls. That dropped to 20% greater odds among the 34,714 participants in the cohort following adoption of stimulant medications.
The odds of those diagnosed with ADHD being much shorter than normal (150-165 vs. 173-185 cm) remained identical (about 55% greater) among the almost 30,000 participants in both cohorts.
In other words, there was no increase in the odds of ADHD individuals being shorter than normal after adoption of stimulant therapy in Sweden compared with before such adoption.
Furthermore, after adjusting for known confounders, including birth weight, inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, hypothyroidism, anxiety disorders, depression, substance use disorder, and highest parental education, the odds of those diagnosed with ADHD being shorter than normal or much shorter than normal in the 1992-2020 cohort dropped to roughly 10% and 30% greater, respectively.
Could it be the disorder itself rather than stimulant treatment that is associated with reduced height in individuals diagnosed with ADHD?
To address effects of environmental and familial/genetic confounding, the team then compared the entire cohort of males diagnosed with ADHD from 1968 through 2020 with typically developing male relatives, ranging from first cousins to full siblings.
Among full siblings, the odds of those with ADHD diagnoses being shorter (over 90,000 participants) or much shorter (over 77,000 participants) were a statistically significant 14% and 18%, respectively.
The authors concluded, “Our findings suggest that ADHD is associated with shorter height. On a population level, this association was present both before and after ADHD-medications were available in Sweden. The association between ADHD and height was partly explained by prenatal factors, psychiatric comorbidity, low SES [socioeconomic status] and a shared familial liability for ADHD.”
_logo%201.svg)
