Atypical Brain Development: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Developmental Learning Disabilities

Abstract

This article presents ideas that are, in part, a response to the ambiguity in the neurological research on learning disorders, the growing awareness that developmental disabilities are typically nonspecific and heterogeneous, and the growing scientific literature showing that comorbidity of symptoms and syndromes is the rule rather than the exception. This article proposes the term atypical brain development (ABD) as a unifying concept to assist researchers and educators trying to come to terms with these dilemmas. ABD is meant to serve as an integrative concept of etiology, the expression of which is variable within and across individuals. ABD does not itself represent a specific disorder or disease. It is a term that can be used to address the full range of developmental disorders that are found to be overlapping much of the time in any sample of children. Although similar in spirit to the older term of minimal brain dysfunction (MBD), in that it closely links neurology with behavioral difficulties, ABD as proposed here differs in several ways. In support of the ABD conceptual framework, first, we consider the ABD concept in terms of its superiority to the older notion of MBD. Second, we provide a brief review of the burgeoning literature on the overlap of the various developmental disabilities. Third, we review some of the scientific literature that supports the ABD concept. Our sole purpose in proposing this concept is to initiate dialogue and debate on several critical issues across a wide variety disciplines. Hence, this article is not intended to be a definitive statement of a rigid perspective. It reflects neither a nonmalleable philosophical position, nor any type of condemnation of other perspectives. It does, however, reflect a data-based and philosophical trend visible in the field of learning disabilities, as well as the broader area of childhood developmental disorders.

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 — 198 citations exist upstream.

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