Specific profiles of neurocognitive and reading functions in a sample of 42 Italian boys with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy

Abstract

A group of 42 Italian boys with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy was compared with a control group of 10 boys with Spinal Muscular Atrophy and Osteogenesis Imperfecta on tests assessing general intellectual ability, language, neuropsychological functions, and reading skills with the aim of describing a comprehensive profile of the various functions and investigating their interrelationships. The influence of general intellectual level on performance was analyzed. Further, correlations between various neuropsychological measures and language performances were computed for the group with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, as well as the correlations between reading scores and other cognitive and linguistic measures. A general lowering in VIQ, PIQ, and FSIQ scores was found to characterize the group with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. Expressive language skills were within the normal range, while syntactic and grammatical comprehension were significantly impaired. The presence of below-average reading performances was further confirmed. However, unlike previous studies on irregular orthographies, the present results show that (a) the mild reading difficulties found in the sample essentially concern speed rather than accuracy; (b) they concern word rather than nonword reading; (c) lower reading performances are related to lower scores in general IQ; (d) no correlations emerge with phonological abilities, verbal short-term memory, or working memory, but rather with long-term memory and lexical skills. This may suggest that language-specific effects modulate the cognitive expressions of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and raises the possibility that the dysfunctions underlying the reading difficulties observed in affected readers of regular orthographies involve different neurocognitive systems than the cortico-cerebellar circuits usually invoked.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 32 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.