4.7 Article

Oculomotor studies of cerebellar function in autism

期刊

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH
卷 137, 期 1-2, 页码 11-19

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2005.07.005

关键词

developmental disabilities; cerebellum; eye movements; motor control; saccades

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [P01 HD035469, HD35469] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [MH01433] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NINDS NIH HHS [NS33355] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Histopathological, neuroimaging and genetic findings indicate cerebellar abnormalities in autism, but the extent of neurophysiological dysfunction associated with those findings has not been systematically examined. Suppression of intrusive saccades (square wave jerks) and the ability to sustain eccentric gaze, two phenomena requiring intact cerebellar function, were examined in 52 high-functioning individuals with autism and 52 age- and IQ-matched healthy subjects during visual fixation of static central and peripheral targets. Rates of intrusive saccades were not increased in autism during visual fixation, and foveopetal ocular drift was also not increased when subjects held an eccentric gaze. The absence of gross disturbances of visual fixation associated with cerebellar disease in individuals with autism, such as increased square wave jerk rates and foveopetal drift when holding eccentric gaze, indicates that the functional integrity of cerebellar-brainstem networks devoted to oculomotor control is preserved in autism despite reported anatomic variations. However, increased amplitude of intrusive saccades and reduced latency of target refixation after intrusive saccades were observed in individuals with autism, especially when subjects maintained lixation of remembered target locations without sensory guidance. The atypical metrics of intrusive saccades that were observed may be attributable to faulty functional connectivity in cortico-cerebellar networks. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据