Biological factors in childhood hyperkinesis: A review of genetic and biochemical hypotheses

McMahon, Robert C.

doi:10.1002/1097-4679(198101)37:1<12::aid-jclp2270370104>3.0.co;2-a

Cited by 9 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Amphetamine response is viewed not as paradoxical, but rather as an expected effect in children whose arousal levels are raised to a more optimum level (Zentall, 1975). However, perusal of a number of excellent reviews of the autonomic and cortical arousal characteristics of hyperactive children leaves one with a rather uncertain picture (Dubey, 1976;McMahon, 1981;Rosenthal & Allen, 1978;Sroufe, 1975). While low arousal theory of hyperkinesis would predict low cortical and autonomic functioning on indices of both tonic and phasic arousal, this prediction is supported only partially.…”

Section: Hyperactivity As Dysfunction Of Arousalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hyperactivity as dysfunction of activity, arousal, or attention: A study of research relating to DSM III'S attention deficit disorder

McMahon

1984

J. Clin. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Examined the recent shift in emphasis from overactivity to the related constructs of arousal, attention and impulsivity in the study of “hyperactive” children. Studies are reviewed that have led to a reconceptualization of the hyperkinetic disorder that focuses on underlying physiological arousal and attentional components. The adequacy of DSM III diagnostic criteria for Attention Deficit Disorder are considered in light of relevant research revelopments.

show abstract

Section: Hyperactivity As Dysfunction Of Arousalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hyperactivity as dysfunction of activity, arousal, or attention: A study of research relating to DSM III'S attention deficit disorder

McMahon

1984

J. Clin. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Neurobiological correlates of learning disabilities

Golden

1982

Annals of Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most investigators now agree on the existence of abnormalities of brain function in children with learning disabilities with or without hyperactivity. However, attempts to define the neurobiological substrates have been hindered by many factors. On the clinical level, learning disability is not a monolithic entity but an operational term used to define a number of specific conditions. The only cornmod feature is difficulty with school performance in the face of normal intelligence. Until homogeneous subgroups can be defined, there is no good reason to suspect a single, discrete biological marker.Neuropathological studies are limited to 2 cases. Attempts to visualize the brain by computerized tomography have provided limited but inconsistent evidence of variations from normal hemispheric widths and asymmetries. Neurophysiological studies have succeeded in separating learning disabled children from normal controls by the application of discriminant analysis and other statistical techniques. Computer-assisted analysis of brain bioelectrical activity has sharpened these tools. Unfortunately, the techniques have not been able to narrow the focus to single, discrete cerebral areas; rather, they have shown dysfunction in widely separated but probably interconnected regions.The only neurochemical studies available have been performed on hyperactive children rather than on patients with uncomplicated learning disabilities. A hypothesis that the underlying pathophysiology involves dopamine depletion has the most support and provides an explanation for some of the therapeutic effects of psychostimulant drugs. Problems are the focus on motor aspects of hyperactivity rather than the attention deficit and heavy dependence on the use of clinical rating scales. The biochemical analyses and conclusions would be more powerful if better psychophysiological markers could he developed, including such factors as attentiveness, distractability, vigilance, attention span, and reaction time.The results of physical and neurological examinations as well as of clinical genetic studies also point toward a biological basis for learning disabilities. These clinical tools help to sharpen our focus but still provide insufficient specificity. Productive search will require close collaboration between neuropsychologists and investigators using the quantitative tools of neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, and neurochemistry.Golden GS: Neurobiological correlates of learning disabilities. Ann Neurol 12: [409][410][411][412][413][414][415][416][417][418] 1082 The child who does not meet expectations for academic performance in school but has intelligence in the normal range has been a subject of research for many years. Concepts concerning these children have been in constant evolution. Initially, especially if the child was from a middle or upper class socioeconomic background, attempts were made to ascribe the difficulty to lack of motivation or to a "block" in the learning process due to psychological dysfunction [30]. The child was then offered psyc...

show abstract

Attention Deficit and Learning Disorders

Katz

1984

Psychological and Behavioral Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biological factors in childhood hyperkinesis: A review of genetic and biochemical hypotheses

Cited by 9 publications

References 42 publications

Hyperactivity as dysfunction of activity, arousal, or attention: A study of research relating to DSM III'S attention deficit disorder

Hyperactivity as dysfunction of activity, arousal, or attention: A study of research relating to DSM III'S attention deficit disorder

Neurobiological correlates of learning disabilities

Attention Deficit and Learning Disorders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About