Response inhibition in Attention deficit disorder and neurofibromatosis type 1 – clinically similar, neurophysiologically different

There are large overlaps in cognitive deficits occurring in attention deficit disorder (ADD) and neurodevelopmental disorders like neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1). This overlap is mostly based on clinical measures and not on in-depth analyses of neuronal mechanisms. However, the consideration of such neuronal underpinnings is crucial when aiming to integrate measures that can lead to a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms. Inhibitory control deficits, for example, are a hallmark in ADD, but it is unclear how far there are similar deficits in NF1. We thus compared adolescent ADD and NF1 patients to healthy controls in a Go/Nogo task using behavioural and neurophysiological measures. Clinical measures of ADD-symptoms were not different between ADD and NF1. Only patients with ADD showed increased Nogo errors and reductions in components reflecting response inhibition (i.e. Nogo-P3). Early perceptual processes (P1) were changed in ADD and NF1. Clinically, patients with ADD and NF1 thus show strong similarities. This is not the case in regard to underlying cognitive control processes. This shows that in-depth analyses of neurophysiological processes are needed to determine whether the overlap between ADD and NF1 is as strong as assumed and to develop appropriate treatment strategies

Conflict processing in juvenile patients with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) and healthy controls – Two pathways to success

Neurofibromatosis Type 1 (NF1) is a monogenetic autosomal-dominant disorder with a broad spectrum of clinical symptoms and is commonly associated with cognitive deficits. Patients with NF1 frequently exhibit cognitive impairments like attention problems, working memory deficits and dysfunctional inhibitory control. The latter is also relevant for the resolution of cognitive conflicts. However, it is unclear how conflict monitoring processes are modulated in NF1. To examine this question in more detail, we used a system neurophysiological approach combining high-density ERP recordings with source localisation analyses in juvenile patients with NF1 and controls during a flanker task. Behaviourally, patients with NF1 perform significantly slower than controls. Specifically on trials with incompatible flanker-target pairings, however, the patients with NF1 made significantly fewer errors than healthy controls. Yet, importantly, this overall successful conflict resolution was reached via two different routes in the two groups. The healthy controls seem to arrive at a successful conflict monitoring performance through a developing conflict recognition via the N2 accompanied by a selectively enhanced N450 activation in the case of perceived flanker-target conflicts. The presumed dopamine deficiency in the patients with NF1 seems to result in a reduced ability to process conflicts via the N2. However, NF1 patients show an increased N450 irrespective of cognitive conflict. Activation differences in the orbitofrontal cortex (BA11) and anterior cingulate cortex (BA24) underlie these modulations. Taken together, juvenile patients with NF1 and juvenile healthy controls seem to accomplish conflict monitoring via two different cognitive neurophysiological pathways