Developmental cognitive genetics: How psychology can inform genetics and vice versa

Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) (Impact Factor: 1.73). 08/2006; 59(7):1153-68. DOI: 10.1080/17470210500489372
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Developmental neuropsychology is concerned with uncovering the underlying basis of developmental disorders such as specific language impairment (SLI), developmental dyslexia, and autistic disorder. Twin and family studies indicate that genetic influences play an important part in the aetiology of all of these disorders, yet progress in identifying genes has been slow. One way forward is to cut loose from conventional clinical criteria for diagnosing disorders and to focus instead on measures of underlying cognitive mechanisms. Psychology can inform genetics by clarifying what the key dimensions are for heritable phenotypes. However, it is not a one-way street. By using genetically informative designs, one can gain insights about causal relationships between different cognitive deficits. For instance, it has been suggested that low-level auditory deficits cause phonological problems in SLI. However, a twin study showed that, although both types of deficit occur in SLI, they have quite different origins, with environmental factors more important for auditory deficit, and genes more important for deficient phonological short-term memory. Another study found that morphosyntactic deficits in SLI are also highly heritable, but have different genetic origins from impairments of phonological short-term memory. A genetic perspective shows that a search for the underlying cause of developmental disorders may be misguided, because they are complex and heterogeneous and are associated with multiple risk factors that only cause serious disability when they occur in combination.


Available from: Dorothy Vera Margaret Bishop, May 30, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background The term ‘specific language impairment’ (SLI), in use since the 1980s, describes children with language impairment whose cognitive skills are within normal limits where there is no identifiable reason for the language impairment. SLI is determined by applying exclusionary criteria, so that it is defined by what it is not rather than by what it is. The recent decision to not include SLI in DSM-5 provoked much debate and concern from researchers and clinicians.AimsTo explore how the term ‘specific language impairment’ emerged, to consider how disorders, including SLI, are generally defined and to explore how societal changes might impact on use the term.Methods & ProceduresWe reviewed the literature to explore the origins of the term ‘specific language impairment’ and present published evidence, as well as new analyses of population data, to explore the validity of continuing to use the term.Outcomes & Results and Conclusions & ImplicationsWe support the decision to exclude the term ‘specific language impairment’ from DSM-5 and conclude that the term has been a convenient label for researchers, but that the current classification is unacceptably arbitrary. Furthermore, we argue there is no empirical evidence to support the continued use of the term SLI and limited evidence that it has provided any real benefits for children and their families. In fact, the term may be disadvantageous to some due to the use of exclusionary criteria to determine eligibility for and access to speech pathology services. We propose the following recommendations. First, that the word ‘specific’ be removed and the label ‘language impairment’ be used. Second, that the exclusionary criteria be relaxed and in their place inclusionary criteria be adopted that take into account the fluid nature of language development particularly in the preschool period. Building on the goodwill and collaborations between the clinical and research communities we propose the establishment of an international consensus panel to develop an agreed definition and set of criteria for language impairment. Given the rich data now available in population studies it is possible to test the validity of these definitions and criteria. Consultation with service users and policy-makers should be incorporated into the decision-making process.
    International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 07/2014; 49(4). DOI:10.1111/1460-6984.12102 · 1.39 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background In domains other than language, there is fairly consistent diagnostic terminology to refer to children's developmental difficulties. For instance, the terms ‘dyslexia’, ‘attention deficit hyperactivity disorder’ and ‘autistic spectrum disorder’ are used for difficulties with reading, attention or social cognition, respectively. There is no agreed label, however, for children with unexplained language problems.AimsTo consider whether we need labels for unexplained language problems in children, and if so, what terminology is appropriate.Main ContributionThere are both advantages and disadvantages to labels, but they are important to ensure children receive services, and to increase our knowledge of the nature and causes of such problems. A survey of labels in current use found 132 different terms, 33 of which had 600 or more returns on Google Scholar between 1994 and 2013. Many of these labels were too general to be useful. Of the remainder, the term ‘specific language impairment’ was the most commonly used.Conclusions The current mayhem in diagnostic labels is unsustainable; it causes confusion and impedes research progress and access to appropriate services. We need to achieve consensus on diagnostic criteria and terminology. The DSM-5 term ‘language disorder’ is problematic because it identifies too wide a range of conditions on an internet search. One solution is to retain specific language impairment, with the understanding that ‘specific’ means idiopathic (i.e., of unknown origin) rather than implying there are no other problems beyond language. Other options are the terms ‘primary language impairment’, ‘developmental language disorder’ or ‘language learning impairment’.
    International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 07/2014; 49(4). DOI:10.1111/1460-6984.12101 · 1.39 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: e consider whether the use of labels is an inevitable consequence of the world of limited and finite resources in which we live and work, or whether there could be other positive reasons for using labels.We argue that it may be more worthwhile expending time and energy on intervention for children with language difficulties rather than on the diagnosis itself.
    International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 05/2015; 49(4):381-415. · 1.39 Impact Factor