Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T19:01:41.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evidence of altered dominance in children with congenital spastic hemiplegia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2009

Marit Korkman  and
Lennart von Wendt
Marit Korkman
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatric Neurology, Helsinki University, Children's Castle Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
Lennart von Wendt
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatric Neurology, Helsinki University, Children's Castle Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The study aimed at investigating lateralization effects and signs of transfer and crowding in children with congenital lateralized brain damage with the aid of a dichotic listening test, a chimeric test, and verbal and nonverbal neuropsychological tests. Thirty-three children with spastic hemiplegia and 86 control children (age 5.0–12.0 yr) were assessed. Children with left-hemisphere damage (n = 17) were found to have a pathological left-ear advantage for verbal material, and children with right-hemisphere damage (n = 16) were found to have a pathological right visual half-field advantage for visual material. Children with left-hemisphere damage and a left-ear advantage on the dichotic test were also found to have a right visual half-field advantage on the chimeric test, which was regarded as a sign of reversed dominance. No verbal or nonverbal differences emerged between the left-hemisphere and the right-hemisphere damage groups, nor did differences emerge when the children were reclassified by considering children with left-hemisphere damage and signs of reversed dominance as having damage to the nondominant hemisphere. It was concluded that although lateralized brain damage may alter the dominance for verbal and visual functions, there is still considerable inter-individual variability with respect to inter- and intrahemispheric neural adjustment to damage. The dichotic and the chimeric tests did not indicate the presence of brain damage accurately, but they indicated the lateralization of damage in children with stated abnormality with a high degree (91.3%) of accuracy. (JINS, 1995, I, 261–270.)

Type
Research Articles
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , May 1995 , pp. 261 - 270
Copyright
Copyright © The International Neuropsychological Society 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aram, D.M. & Ekelman, B.L. (1988). Scholastic aptitude and achievement among children with unilateral brain lesions. Neuropsychologia, 26, 903–916.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ballantyne, A.O., Scarvie, K.M., & Trauner, D.A. (1994). Verbal and performance IQ patterns in children after perinatal stroke. Developmental Neuropsychology, 10, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beery, K.A. (1983). Visual-Motor Integration [Monograph]. Cleveland, OH: Modern Curriculum Press.Google Scholar
Berti, A., Alport, A., Driver, J., Dienes, Z., Oxbury, J., & Oxbury, S. (1992). Levels of processing for visual stimuli in an “extinguished” field. Neuropsychologia, 30, 403–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buxbaum, L.J. & Coslett, H.J. (1994). Neglect of chimeric figures: Two halves are better than a whole. Neuropsychologia, 32, 275–288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlsson, G., Hugdahl, K., Uvebrandt, P., Wiklund, L.-M., & von Wendt, L. (1992). Pathological Ieft-handedness revisited: Dichotic listening in children with left vs right congenital hemiplegia. Neuropsychologica, 30, 471–481.Google Scholar
Carlsson, G., Uvebrandt, P., Hugdahl, K., Arvidsson, J., Wiklund, L.-M., & von Wendt, L. (1994). Verbal and non-verbal function of children with right- versus left hemiplegic cerebral palsy of pre- and perinatal origin. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 36, 503–512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen Levine, S., Huttenlocher, P., Banich, M.T., & Duda, E. (1987). Factors affecting cognitive functioning of hemiplegic children. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 29, 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
deRenzi, E. & Faglioni, P. (1978). Normative data and screening power of a shortened version of the Token Test. Cortex, 14, 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagberg, B., Hagberg, G., & Olow, I. (1975). The changing panorama of cerebral palsy in Sweden 1954–70. I. Analysis of general changes. Acta Paediatria Scandinavica, 64, 187–192.Google Scholar
Hugdahl, K. & Carlsson, G. (1994). Dichotic listening and focused attention in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 16, 84–92.Google Scholar
Kiessling, L.S., Denckla, M.B., & Carlton, M. (1983). Evidence for differential hemispheric function in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 25, 727–734.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kohn, B. & Dennis, M. (1976). Selective impairment of visuospatial abilities in infantile hemiplegics after right cerebral hemidecortication. Neuropsychologia, 12, 505–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korkman, M. (1988a). NEPSY. A proposed neuropsychological test battery for young developmentally disabled children: Theory and evaluation. Helsinki, Finland: Yliopistopaino.Google Scholar
Korkman, M. (1988b). Published doctoral dissertation NEPSY-an adaptation of Luria's investigation for young children. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 2, 375–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korkman, M. (1995). A test profile approach in analyzing cognitive disorders in children: Experiences of the NEPSY. In Tramontana, M.G. & Hooper, S.R. (Eds.), Advances in Child Neuropsychology. Vol. 3 (pp. 84–116). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Korkman, M. & Häkkinen-Rihu, P. (1994). A new classification of developmental language disorders (DLD). Brain and Language, 47, 96–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Korkman, M. & Levanen, S. (1992). Dikoottinen koe—käsikirja (The Dichotic test—manual). Helsinki, Finland: PJK Test House.Google Scholar
Loring, D.W., Meador, K.J., Lee, G.P., Murro, A.M., Smith, J.R., Flanigin, H.F., Gallagher, B.B., & King, D.W. (1990). Cerebral language lateralization: Evidence from intracarotid amobarbital testing. Neuropsychologia, 28, 831–838.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Orsini, D.L. & Satz, P. (1986). A syndrome of pathological lefthandedness. Archives of Neurology, 43, 333–337.Google Scholar
Roberts, R.J., Varney, N.R., Paulsen, J.S., & Richardson, E.D. (1990). Dichotic listening and complex partial seizures. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 12, 448–459.Google Scholar
Satz, P., Orsini, D.L., Saslow, E., & Henry, R. (1985). Early brain injury and pathological left-handedness: Clues to a syndrome. In Benson, D.F. & Zaidel, E. (Eds.), The dual brain. Hemispheric specialization in humans (pp. 117–125). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Satz, P., Strauss, E., Hunter, M., & Wada, J. (1994). Re examination of the crowding hypothesis: Effects of age of onset. Neuropsychology, 8, 255–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiles, J. & Nass, R. (1991). Spatial grouping activity in young children with congenital right or left hemisphere injury. Brain and Cognition, 15, 201–222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stiles-Davies, J., Janowsky, J., Engel, M., & Nass, R. (1988). Drawing ability in four young children with congenital unilateral brain lesions. Neuropsychologia, 26, 359–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, E., Satz, P., & Wada, J. (1990). Note. An examination of the crowding hypothesis in epileptic patients who have undergone the carotid amytal test. Neuropsychologia, 28, 1221–1227.Google Scholar
Strauss, E., Wada, J., & Hunter, M. (1992). Sex-related differences in the cognitive consequences of early left-hemisphere lesions. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 14, 738–748.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teuber, H.-L. (1974). Why two brains? In Schmitt, F.O. & Worden, F.G. (Eds.), The neurosciences: Third study program (pp. 71–74). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vargha-Khadem, F., O‘Gorman, A.M., & Watters, G.V. (1985). Aphasia and handedness in relation to hemispheric side, age at injury and severity of cerebral lesion during childhood. Brain, 108, 677–696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vargha-Khadem, F. & Polkey, C.E. (1992). A review of cognitive outcome after hemidecortication in humans. Advances in Experimental Biological Medicine, 325, 137–151.Google Scholar
Wiklund, L.-M., Uvebrandt, P., & Flodmark, O. (1991). Computed tomography as an adjunct in etiological analysis of hemiplegic cerebral palsy. I: Children born pretcrm. Neuropediatrics, 22, 50–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woods, B.T. (1980). The restricted effects of right-hemisphere lesions after age one: Wechsler test data. Neuropsychologia, 18, 65–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Young, A.W., De Haan, E.H.F., Newcombe, F., & Hay, D.C. (1990). Facial neglect. Neuropsychologica, 28, 391–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed