Archive for December, 2006

Dore dinged

Fortunately, there’s some press about bogus therapies. In an article entitled “‘Cure’ for dyslexia comes under fire.” Paul Heinrichs of The Age (AU) examined the problems with the Dore treatment program that has been poplular in Great Britan. (I expressed reservations about this prollgram exactly one year ago, as available here. I still harbor those concerns.)

The Dore program, which is sold for about $4500 a child through 11 Australian centres, including one in Melbourne, uses simple physical exercises such as throwing a bean bag from hand to hand and standing on a wobbleboard.

Its founder, British millionaire Wynford Dore, claims the program has delivered “breakthrough” results for dyslexia sufferers and assists children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), dyspraxia (poor co-ordination) and Asperger’s syndrome, an autism-like condition.

Much of the renewed emphasis on the Dore program probably comes from the controversial study published recently in an academic journal in GB. I’ve not personally reviewed that study, so I shan’t comment. However, I plan to do so, as I suspect that it will be a good illustration of how mistakes are made either in the peer review process or the representation by the press of a simple academic agreement.

Link for Mr. Heinrichs’ article.

ADHD bologna

Over on I Speak of Dreams, Liz Ditz has a post regarding the untrustworthiness of a Web site on ADHD. Liz refers to a post on Drumsnwhistles that took the Attention Deficit Disorder blog to task for making false statements about research and for pushing remedies of ADHD that have virtually no evidenciary bases. I’m glad to see that folks on the Internet are gazing with a sensibly skeptical eye on some of these merchandizing schemes. Hoooray! There’s entirely too much bologna on the Web, so let’s root it out of the garden and flush it into the compost heap (teehee–making mush with metaphors).

Link to Liz’s post about the site. Here’s a link to the post on Drumsnwhistles to which Liz referred.

Attention genetics

Fan, Yanhong, Fossella, and Posner (2001) compared monozygotic and dyzygotic twins on the Attention Network Test (ANT), an assessment system that measures three anatomically defined networks related to attention. They found that one of these three appeared likely to be inheritable.

Results: The efficiency of the executive attention network, that mediates stimulus and response conflict, shows sufficient heritability to warrant further study. Alerting and overall reaction time show some evidence for heritability and in our study the orienting network shows no evidence of heritability.

Conclusions: These results suggest that genetic variation contributes to normal individual differences in higher order executive attention involving dopamine rich frontal areas including the anterior cingulate. At least the executive portion of the ANT may serve as a valid endophenotype for larger twin studies and subsequent molecular genetic analysis in normal subject populations.

Link to a the PDF of the Fan et al. paper, “Assessing the heritability of attentional networks.” There’s just boat loads of interesting activity in this area. Check this list of sources.

Misrepresentations

As regular readers (both of you!) know, one of the things that concerns me is the misrepresentation of Learning Disabilities. I get at least mildly irritated when people perpetuate misinformation about Learning Disabilities because (a) people new to Learning Disabilities are likely to accept the ideas as accurate and, thus, perpetuate them even longer; (b) the misrepresentations compete with and often muscle evidentiarily and reasonedly sound ideas out of the way, thus doing a dis-service to those who need help; and (c) popularization of falacious ideas about Learning Disabilities increases the general level of sketpticism about Learning Disabilities, cheapens the concept, makes it harder for those of us who are seeking demonstrable progress in understanding Learning Disabilities and helping those who must contend with them day in and day out. (Please fell free to suggest other reasons for concern.)

In a post entitled “Friday Dyslexia Woo,” Liz Ditz exposes some more of the bologna that passes as fresh steak on the Internet. Liz has a great track record at catching a whiff of the smoke from the sizzle and telling whether there’s steak under it. Here her critique is simple and direct: “No evidence, just claims and testimonials.” Read it, please.