Experiments in time:exploring the components of motor timing behaviour in dyslexia

This investigation aimed to pinpoint the elements of motor timing control that are responsible for the increased variability commonly found in children with developmental dyslexia on paced or unpaced motor timing tasks (Chapter 3). Such temporal processing abilities are thought to be important for developing the appropriate phonological representations required for the development of literacy skills. Similar temporal processing difficulties arise in other developmental disorders such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Motor timing behaviour in developmental populations was examined in the context of models of typical human timing behaviour, in particular the Wing-Kristofferson model, allowing estimation of the contribution of different timing control systems, namely timekeeper and implementation systems (Chapter 2 and Methods Chapters 4 and 5). Research examining timing in populations with dyslexia and ADHD has been inconsistent in the application of stimulus parameters and so the first investigation compared motor timing behaviour across different stimulus conditions (Chapter 6). The results question the suitability of visual timing tasks which produced greater performance variability than auditory or bimodal tasks. Following an examination of the validity of the Wing-Kristofferson model (Chapter 7) the model was applied to time series data from an auditory timing task completed by children with reading difficulties and matched control groups (Chapter 8). Expected group differences in timing performance were not found, however, associations between performance and measures of literacy and attention were present. Results also indicated that measures of attention and literacy dissociated in their relationships with components of timing, with literacy ability being correlated with timekeeper variance and attentional control with implementation variance. It is proposed that these timing deficits associated with reading difficulties are attributable to central timekeeping processes and so the contribution of error correction to timing performance was also investigated (Chapter 9). Children with lower scores on measures of literacy and attention were found to have a slower or failed correction response to phase errors in timing behaviour. Results from the series of studies suggest that the motor timing difficulty in poor reading children may stem from failures in the judgement of synchrony due to greater tolerance of uncertainty in the temporal processing system.

Interval timing in children:effects of auditory and visual pacing stimuli and relationships with reading and attention variables

Motor timing tasks have been employed in studies of neurodevelopmental disorders such as developmental dyslexia and ADHD, where they provide an index of temporal processing ability. Investigations of these disorders have used different stimulus parameters within the motor timing tasks which are likely to affect performance measures. Here we assessed the effect of auditory and visual pacing stimuli on synchronised motor timing performance and its relationship with cognitive and behavioural predictors that are commonly used in the diagnosis of these highly prevalent developmental disorders. Twenty- one children (mean age 9.6 years) completed a finger tapping task in two stimulus conditions, together with additional psychometric measures. As anticipated, synchronisation to the beat (ISI 329 ms) was less accurate in the visually paced condition. Decomposition of timing variance indicated that this effect resulted from differences in the way that visual and auditory paced tasks are processed by central timekeeping and associated peripheral implementation systems. The ability to utilise an efficient processing strategy on the visual task correlated with both reading and sustained attention skills. Dissociations between these patterns of relationship across task modality suggest that not all timing tasks are equivalent.

Timing continuous or discontinuous movements across effectors specified by different pacing modalities and intervals

Sensorimotor synchronization is hypothesized to arise through two different processes, associated with continuous or discontinuous rhythmic movements. This study investigated synchronization of continuous and discontinuous movements to different pacing signals (auditory or visual), pacing interval (500, 650, 800, 950 ms) and across effectors (non-dominant vs. non-dominant hand). The results showed that mean and variability of asynchronization errors were consistently smaller for discontinuous movements compared to continuous movements. Furthermore, both movement types were timed more accurately with auditory pacing compared to visual pacing and were more accurate with the dominant hand. Shortening the pacing interval also improved sensorimotor synchronization accuracy in both continuous and discontinuous movements. These results show the dependency of temporal control of movements on the nature of the motor task, the type and rate of extrinsic sensory information as well as the efficiency of the motor actuators for sensory integration.

Modulation of long-range neural synchrony reflects temporal limitations of visual attention in humans

Because of attentional limitations, the human visual system can process for awareness and response only a fraction of the input received. Lesion and functional imaging studies have identified frontal, temporal, and parietal areas as playing a major role in the attentional control of visual processing, but very little is known about how these areas interact to form a dynamic attentional network. We hypothesized that the network communicates by means of neural phase synchronization, and we used magnetoencephalography to study transient long-range interarea phase coupling in a well studied attentionally taxing dual-target task (attentional blink). Our results reveal that communication within the fronto-parieto-temporal attentional network proceeds via transient long-range phase synchronization in the beta band. Changes in synchronization reflect changes in the attentional demands of the task and are directly related to behavioral performance. Thus, we show how attentional limitations arise from the way in which the subsystems of the attentional network interact. The human brain faces an inestimable task of reducing a potentially overloading amount of input into a manageable flow of information that reflects both the current needs of the organism and the external demands placed on it. This task is accomplished via a ubiquitous construct known as “attention,” whose mechanism, although well characterized behaviorally, is far from understood at the neurophysiological level. Whereas attempts to identify particular neural structures involved in the operation of attention have met with considerable success (1-5) and have resulted in the identification of frontal, parietal, and temporal regions, far less is known about the interaction among these structures in a way that can account for the task-dependent successes and failures of attention. The goal of the present research was, thus, to unravel the means by which the subsystems making up the human attentional network communicate and to relate the temporal dynamics of their communication to observed attentional limitations in humans. A prime candidate for communication among distributed systems in the human brain is neural synchronization (for review, see ref. 6). Indeed, a number of studies provide converging evidence that long-range interarea communication is related to synchronized oscillatory activity (refs. 7-14; for review, see ref. 15). To determine whether neural synchronization plays a role in attentional control, we placed humans in an attentionally demanding task and used magnetoencephalography (MEG) to track interarea communication by means of neural synchronization. In particular, we presented 10 healthy subjects with two visual target letters embedded in streams of 13 distractor letters, appearing at a rate of seven per second. The targets were separated in time by a single distractor. This condition leads to the “attentional blink” (AB), a well studied dual-task phenomenon showing the reduced ability to report the second of two targets when an interval <500 ms separates them (16-18). Importantly, the AB does not prevent perceptual processing of missed target stimuli but only their conscious report (19), demonstrating the attentional nature of this effect and making it a good candidate for the purpose of our investigation. Although numerous studies have investigated factors, e.g., stimulus and timing parameters, that manipulate the magnitude of a particular AB outcome, few have sought to characterize the neural state under which “standard” AB parameters produce an inability to report the second target on some trials but not others. We hypothesized that the different attentional states leading to different behavioral outcomes (second target reported correctly or not) are characterized by specific patterns of transient long-range synchronization between brain areas involved in target processing. Showing the hypothesized correspondence between states of neural synchronization and human behavior in an attentional task entails two demonstrations. First, it needs to be demonstrated that cortical areas that are suspected to be involved in visual-attention tasks, and the AB in particular, interact by means of neural synchronization. This demonstration is particularly important because previous brain-imaging studies (e.g., ref. 5) only showed that the respective areas are active within a rather large time window in the same task and not that they are concurrently active and actually create an interactive network. Second, it needs to be demonstrated that the pattern of neural synchronization is sensitive to the behavioral outcome; specifically, the ability to correctly identify the second of two rapidly succeeding visual targets