Are motor inhibition and cognitive flexibility dead ends in ADHD?

Contains fulltext : 53518.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)Executive dysfunction has been postulated as the core deficit in ADHD, although many deficits in lower order cognitive processes have also been identified. By obtaining an appropriate baseline of lower order cognitive functioning light may be shed on as to whether executive deficits result from problems in lower order and/or higher order cognitive processes. We examined motor inhibition and cognitive flexibility in relation to a baseline measure in 816 children from ADHD and control families. Multiple children in a family were tested in order to examine the familiality of the measures. No evidence was found for deficits in motor inhibition or cognitive flexibility in children with ADHD or their nonaffected siblings: Compared to their baseline speed and accuracy of responding, children with ADHD and their (non)affected siblings were not disproportionally slower or inaccurate when demands for motor inhibition or cognitive flexibility were added to the task. However, children with ADHD and their (non)affected siblings were overall less accurate than controls, which could not be attributed to differences in response speed. This suggests that inaccuracy of responding is characteristic of children having (a familial risk for) ADHD. Motor inhibition and cognitive flexibility as operationalized with mean reaction time were found to be familial. It is concluded that poorer performance on executive tasks in children with ADHD and their (non)affected siblings may result from deficiencies in lower order cognitive processes and not (only) from higher order cognitive processes/executive functions

Psychiatric and cognitive phenotype in children and adolescents with myotonic dystrophy

Myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) is the most frequent inherited neuromuscular disorder. The juvenile form has been associated with cognitive and psychiatric dysfunction, but the phenotype remains unclear. We reviewed the literature to examine the psychiatric phenotype of juvenile DM1 and performed an admixture analysis of the IQ distribution of our own patients, as we hypothesised a bimodal distribution. Two-thirds of the patients had at least one DSM-IV diagnosis, mainly attention deficit/ hyperactivity disorder and anxiety disorder. Two-thirds had learning disabilities comorbid with mental retardation on one hand, but also attention deficit, low cognitive speed and visual spatial impairment on the other. IQ showed a bi-modal distribution and was associated with parental transmission. The psychiatric phenotype in juvenile DM1 is complex. We distinguished two different phenotypic subtypes: one group characterised by mental retardation, severe developmental delay and maternal transmission; and another group characterised by borderline full scale IQ, subnormal development and paternal transmission