Verbal WM/STM is probably

only impaired if DD is accompanied by reading/verbal difficulties (e.g., with dyslexia). We conclude that the MR theory of DD which is currently dominant in neuroscience research is insufficient to explain pure DD. Hence, there is a need for a paradigm shift in DD research; neuro-imaging studies should now take alternative theories of DD, defined by extensive behavioral research, seriously. Crucially, rather than aiming at reconfirming a single theory of DD, studies should test click here theories against each other. Our data suggests that the most robust dysfunction in DD is that of visuo-spatial STM and WM with the impairment of inhibitory function (interference suppression). Both of these functions have been linked to the IPS. Hence, we suggest that IPS dysfunction in DD is probably related to WM and inhibition impairment. We hypothesize that the WM and inhibition impairments are related to each other and the inhibition function impairment reflects the disruption of a crucial processes of central executive memory function. That is, pure DD could be characterized by the specific impairment of visuo-spatial STM and by the specific impairment of CX-5461 clinical trial the inhibitory processes

crucial to visuo-spatial central executive memory function resulting in poor WM. Future imaging studies of DD should take these cognitive functions into account. Intervention studies could explore whether the above functions can be improved in DD. Spatial processing seems intact

in DD albeit slowly accessible which is probably a consequence of memory/inhibition impairment. This work was supported by Medical Research Council grant G90951 (D.S.). D.S., F.S., A.D. and A.N. designed the study. F.G. contributed to design. F.S. programmed experimental paradigms. A.D., A.N. and F.G. collected the data. F.S. prepared Thymidine kinase the data for analysis. D.S. wrote analysis programmes, analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. “
“When a person speaks, we usually expect to hear their voice at the same time as seeing their lips move. Furthermore, if we watch their lips, it often helps us to hear their voice better, via ‘speechreading’ (Sumby and Pollack, 1954). Two distinct kinds of processes are implied by such observations: synchronisation and integration. Firstly, we are sensitive to when auditory and visual events are occurring at the same time (Alais and Carlile, 2005; King, 2005; Kopinska and Harris, 2004; Sugita and Suzuki, 2003). Secondly, the ability to benefit from the combination of modalities, as in speechreading, requires that auditory and visual information be brought together in the brain and integrated.