Content area
Children with learning disorders (LD) perform below average in tests of academic abilities and intelligence. These children also have a significantly abnormal resting-state electroencephalogram (EEG) compared to children with typical development (TD), i.e., an excess of slow brain oscillations such as delta and theta that may be markers of inefficient cognitive processing. We aimed to explore the relationship between the performance in an intelligence test and the resting-state EEG power spectrum of children with LD. Ninety-one children with LD and 45 control children with TD were evaluated with the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children 4th Edition (WISC-IV) test of intelligence and a 19-channel EEG during an eyes-closed resting-state condition. The EEG dimensionality was reduced with a principal component analysis that yielded several components representing EEG bands with functional meaning. The first seven EEG components and the intelligence values were analyzed with multiple linear regression and a between-group discriminant analysis. The EEG power spectrum was significantly related to children’s intelligence, predicting 13.1% of the IQ variance. Generalized delta and theta power were inversely related to IQ, whereas frontoparietal gamma activity was directly related. The intelligence test and the resting state EEG had a combined 82.4% success rate to discriminate between children with TD and those with LDs.
Full text
Introduction
A child is diagnosed with a learning disorder (LD) if the scores on standardized academic tests of reading, writing, and/or mathematics are significantly below the expected for their age, with learning difficulties that substantially interfere with school performance or activities of daily living. Such difficulties cannot be better explained by intellectual disabilities, inadequate school instruction, or sensory/neurological impairments (American Psychiatric Association, 2022). With a prevalence of 5–20% in children and adolescents, LD is more common than ADHD or other neurodevelopmental disorders (Altarac & Saroha, 2007; Lagae, 2008). A reading disorder (such as dyslexia) is the most prevalent LD subtype, but it appears in combination with other disorders (writing or mathematics) in up to 80% of LD cases (American Psychiatric Association, 2022; Willcutt et al., 2013). Such combined types of LDs were formerly known as LDs not otherwise specified (American Psychiatric Association, 2000).
The often-found combination of learning disorders is accompanied by a heterogeneous frame of cognitive impairments, with several cognitive processes recognized as affected, such as verbal comprehension, processing speed, and working memory (Johnson et al., 2010; Semrud-Clikeman, 2005; Willcutt et al., 2013). An impaired working memory has been singled out as the underlying factor behind individuals with LD’s defective acquisition of academic skills (Peng et al., 2018; Schuchardt, Maehler & Hasselhorn, 2008; Swanson, 2020). However, a more general factor might be in place after examining the working memory hypothesis under the light of intelligence research.
The role of intelligence in academic performance
Cognitive processes are often assessed by and in conjunction with a battery of intelligence tests, which mainly yield an IQ score as a standardized and age-corrected estimate of general cognitive ability (g). The g factor is an individual’s proclivity to solve any set of abstract problems with a similar level of performance (Deary, 2020). The compiled problems of an IQ test also represent a person’s ability to benefit from instruction and the amount of training needed to reach a certain level of competence (Johnson, Deary & Carothers, 2009). A higher IQ suggests a greater capacity for abstract reasoning and applying existing knowledge to solve problems.
The diagnosis of LD involves excluding intellectual disability, i.e., an IQ below 70. Nonetheless, when the fields of education and intelligence blend, a consistent finding is that IQ scores are highly related to performance in tests of academic abilities. Intelligence is indeed the most important predictor of school achievement, with values of 58–69% of the explained variance of academic performance (MacCann et al., 2019; Mammadov, 2022). Moreover, across all academic domains and from early childhood, g has been found to have a stronger relationship to academic skills than specific cognitive processes, with g’s explained variance higher than the accounted by the individual processes combined (Zaboski, Kranzler & Gage, 2018). Thus, it has been suggested that in most children at the lower ends of mathematics and reading competencies, poor academic performance could mainly result from a lower-than-average intelligence, though not as low into the cutoff point for intellectual disability, rather than being due to specific learning problems. Accordingly, most LDs would be lower-than-average instances from a normal distribution of academic and cognitive performance (Haier, Colom & Hunt, 2023; Shaywitz et al., 1992; Wai & Bailey, 2021). This notion would be in line with the IQ test’s initial objective, originally developed by Alfred Binet as a tool to identify children with learning disabilities and tailor interventions to their specific needs, highlighting its foundational role in advancing educational equity (Wai & Bailey, 2021).
Moreover, research has shown that children with LDs often face challenges with self-esteem (an aspect of self-perception, also known as self-concept), largely due to academic struggles and social comparisons (Baumeister et al., 2003; McArthur et al., 2020; Smith & Nagle, 1995). Such findings highlight the importance of framing LD-related research in ways that support children and guide evidence-based interventions. While IQ is a valuable tool for identifying cognitive strengths and difficulties, it reflects only one aspect of a child’s potential, underscoring the need for assessments and interventions that address both cognitive and emotional well-being (Eroğlu et al., 2022; Martínez-Briones et al., 2023).
Mapping intelligence through brain imaging
Regarding the neuroscience of intelligence, IQ has been related to activation levels and measures of connectivity in brain regions from three main networks: the fronto-parietal network (FPN), the default mode network (DMN), and the attention (dorsal and ventral) network. In particular, the FPN and DMN of more intelligent individuals during cognitive tasks appear in an interplay of activation of the former coupled with deactivation of the latter. This has been regarded as an effective activation of task-related brain regions while the irrelevant ones get suppressed (Hilger et al., 2022). Indeed, the neural efficiency hypothesis states that more intelligent individuals would require less overall brain energy, such that less activation would imply more efficient neural functioning (Neubauer & Fink, 2009).
Moreover, network-based analyses have identified structural-functional similarities between baseline resting states and the neural activity underlying the performance of different cognitive tasks (Kraus et al., 2021), supporting a notion of the resting state as a type of task general preparation state (in contrast to task-specific states); with less network reorganization across-states being found in the more intelligent subjects. Such network structure may allow high-IQ individuals to switch faster and more efficiently between different task specific states according to varying cognitive demands (Thiele et al., 2022). Thus, the brains of intelligent individuals could be more efficient not only by spending less overall energy to process certain levels of complexity from the environment, but also by responding to prompts with less reconfiguration between neural states.
Lastly, it should be noted that the dynamics of the FPN, the DMN and the attention network both during resting and task-related conditions have been found to be significant predictors of intelligence test scores (Hilger et al., 2022). Such finding is also supported by the electroencephalogram (EEG) literature summarized below that has correlated the EEG both during rest and task related conditions with intelligence, specific cognitive processes and academic performance.
EEG as a tool to study resting and task-related conditions
The EEG allows to identify electrophysiological correlates of cognitive functioning and specific power-spectrum patterns in both healthy and clinical populations, such as children with LDs (Cainelli et al., 2023; Roca-Stappung et al., 2017). Event-related potential (ERP) studies in healthy adults have found that the amplitudes of neural responses to verbal and visuospatial problems are negatively correlated with cognitive measures of verbal and visuospatial reasoning, respectively, consistent with the brain efficiency hypothesis (Neubauer et al., 2005). Then, more established findings have identified attributes of ERP components such as P3 latency and the amplitude of the mismatch negativity (MMN), indices of mental speed and automatic discrimination processes, respectively, to be negatively correlated with intelligence (Hilger et al., 2022).
In resting or task-related conditions, an EEG power-spectrum analysis identifies the neurophysiological activity and decomposes it into different frequencies. These frequencies, grouped into various EEG bands, have been consistently linked to different neural states and cognitive processes. For instance, the slowest EEG band of delta (0.5–4 Hz) is normally suppressed during rest in healthy and wakeful individuals, compared to several abnormal conditions. A heightened delta at rest would indicate abnormal states of reduced alertness and a defective ability to detect salient stimuli (Knyazev, 2012; Lian et al., 2023), but a healthy task related increase of delta indicates a proper filtering of sensory stimuli that could interfere with concentration (Harmony, 2013). The theta (4–8 Hz) band is suppressed during the resting state of normal individuals, compared to several abnormal conditions. During tasks, it is increasingly recruited according to the resources needed to properly perform a cognitive task, but is even more pronounced in less apt or mature individuals, including situations that require a higher short-term memory load and when focusing involves more effort (Eschmann, Bader & Mecklinger, 2018; Gevins et al., 1997).
Delving into faster EEG patterns, a posterior alpha (8–13 Hz) power increase appears at rest (with eyes closed while awake), a sign of healthy vigilant relaxation and disengagement from external stimuli, which can be suppressed in several abnormal conditions. Such alpha power increase has been found to be positively correlated with intelligence tests in healthy adults (Doppelmayr et al., 2002). Besides, a normal suppression of alpha during cognitive tasks, known as an event-related desynchronization (ERD) (Pfurtscheller & Klimesch, 1992), has been found to be negatively associated with intelligence during moderately difficult cognitive tasks (Hilger et al., 2022). Then, when alpha power is divided into lower (8–10 Hz) and upper-alpha (10–12 Hz), a typical increase in the upper part of alpha during cognitive tasks has been related to inhibitory control in the active withholding of responses (Klimesch, Sauseng & Hanslmayr, 2007).
Moving on to beta (13–30 Hz) power, it is related to a top-down activation of states of readiness for action and manipulation of task-related contents (Spitzer & Haegens, 2017), with increases in upper-beta (20–30 Hz) being linked to the preparation of motor responses (Schapkin et al., 2020). Lastly, gamma (30–100 Hz) power underlies cognitive functions such as perception and memory formation, which are implicated in the binding together of different sensory inputs and recollections (Başar, 2013; Honkanen et al., 2015). The increased frontoparietal gamma power during rest, identified as part of the dorsal attention network, was found to correlate with measures of arousal and was suppressed in subjects with ADHD compared to controls (Barry et al., 2010; Tombor et al., 2019).
Thus, for both healthy and abnormal populations, specific EEG patterns have been found related to cognitive processes and intelligence. In children with LDs, as summarized below, EEG patterns have been related to academic performance, but a direct relationship between intelligence and the EEG of children with LDs has not been explored.
Previous EEG studies on learning disorders
As a preliminary note, children with LD often show a resting state with abnormal characteristics, such as elevated delta and theta activity, EEG patterns which would be indicative of general neurophysiological dysregulations that overlap with other developmental or neurological conditions, rather than being specific to LD alone. Additionally, transient physiological factors, such as metabolic variations or inflammation, can temporarily influence such EEG patterns (Lin, 2005). However, our study focuses on stable, group-level psychophysiological features rather than short-term fluctuations.
In particular, and compared to children with typical development, the EEG resting state of children with LDs often shows an excess of theta power (Fernández et al., 2002; Jäncke & Alahmadi, 2016), coupled with excesses of delta (Arns et al., 2007), beta (Jäncke et al., 2019), although a suppressed alpha activity (Fernández et al., 2002; Fonseca et al., 2006; Harmony et al., 1990). A recent meta-analysis has confirmed the presence of generalized excesses of delta and theta, and suppressed alpha activity (Cainelli et al., 2023). During a child’s development into an adult, delta and theta power are expected to diminish, while alpha and beta power tend to increase. Then, given that the EEG of children with LDs appears abnormally slower compared to that of age-matched controls with typical development (i.e., an LD’s EEG is frequently similar to what is expected in younger control children), LDs have been reframed via the EEG maturation hypothesis as suffering from a lagged brain functional development that affects the ability to keep up at school (Chabot et al., 2001; Fonseca et al., 2006; Guhan Seshadri et al., 2023).
Two works that distinguished children with LDs by levels of academic impairment found the worst performers with excesses of delta, theta, and beta (Bosch-Bayard et al., 2018; Roca-Stappung et al., 2017), and also a suppressed gamma (Roca-Stappung et al., 2017); being notable that the children identified with more severe LDs had a lower IQ in comparison (Cárdenas et al., 2021; Fernández et al., 2014; Harmony et al., 1990; Roca-Stappung et al., 2017). Lastly, the resting state of children with LDs has also been associated with performance in academic tests. Academic ability was found to be positively correlated with alpha, and negatively correlated with delta and theta (Harmony et al., 1990), and another work that studied reading tasks found performance positively correlated with posterior alpha (Babiloni et al., 2012).
In summary, while no direct relationship between intelligence and the EEG of LDs has been studied, academic ability is highly related to intelligence, and previous studies of resting state EEG in children with LDs have found that academic performance is negatively related to delta, theta, and beta power, and positively related to alpha and gamma power. This way we could draw indirect predictions between intelligence and the functioning of brains with varying performance in academic evaluations.
Thus, unlike earlier work that primarily focused on academic performance, our study uniquely aimed to explore the association between the resting state EEG power spectrum and the intelligence of children with LDs via regression analysis. In line with the reported academic performance findings, our main hypothesis was that the IQ of children with LD would be negatively related to delta, theta, and beta and positively related to alpha and gamma power. As a secondary objective, we explored if any of the intelligence and EEG variables can adequately discriminate between an LD or a control child via a discriminant analysis, to clarify the relevance of intelligence and EEG measures in studying learning disorders.
Materials & Methods
Participants
This study’s protocol complies with the Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects established by the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki, 2013). All the children as well as their parents signed informed consent forms that were approved by the Ethical Committee of the Instituto de Neurobiología (INEU/SA/CB/146) of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM). The parents agreed to the use of the information, which was further re-coded (anonymized) to protect the privacy of the subjects, for research and academic dissemination purposes.
A total of 136 right-handed children (59 girls) between the ages of 8 and 11 participated in this study. These participants were recruited from both public and private elementary schools in Mexico. To be included in the study, all children needed to meet the following three criteria:
- A normal neurological and psychiatric assessment (with the exception of LD-specific diagnostic criteria detailed below), no language impairments, and no uncorrected visual or auditory deficits (children with vision issues were required to wear corrective glasses).
- An intelligence quotient (IQ) score above 70, as determined by the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children 4th Edition (WISC-IV), standardized for the Mexican population (Fina, Sánchez-Escobedo & Hollingworth, 2012; Wechsler, 2010), to exclude intellectual disabilities
- No severe socioeconomic disadvantages, defined as having a mother (or primary guardian) with at least an elementary school education and a per capita income above 50% of the minimum wage.
Within the sample, 91 children (34 girls) were identified as having a learning disorder based on the following three criteria: (a) low academic performance reported by both teachers and parents; (b) scores below the 10th percentile on reading, writing, or mathematics subscales of the Neuropsychological Scale for Children 2nd Edition (ENI-2), standardized for Mexican children (Matute et al., 2014); and (c) a psychologist’s final diagnosis of LD based on DSM-5 criteria (American Psychiatric Association, 2022). Although some children missed completing items on the attentional evaluation, none met DSM-5 criteria for ADHD (American Psychiatric Association, 2022).
The remaining 45 children (25 girls) comprised the control group, consisting of typically developing children with good academic performance as reported by their parents and teachers. These children scored above the 36th percentile in reading, writing, and mathematics on the ENI-2 scale (Matute et al., 2014). Table 1 presents the key descriptive statistics for the two groups.
Table 1: Between-group t-test comparison of the main descriptive characteristics of the participants. The reading, writing, and mathematics variables are composite percentile scores from the ENI-2 scale.
| Test | Variable | Ctrl group n = 45 Mean (SD) | LD group n = 91 Mean (SD) | t | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WISC-IV | Age | 9.53 (0.89) | 9.25 (0.93) | 1.68 | 0.095 |
| Full scale IQ | 105.73 (12.68) | 89.19 (10.07) | 8.26 | <0.0001 | |
| ENI-2 | Reading | 203.29 (36.91) | 71.49 (57.43) | 14.06 | <0.0001 |
| Writing | 210.16 (40.90) | 92.30 (59.18) | 12.01 | <0.0001 | |
| Mathematics | 265.73 (58.22) | 125.97 (68.67) | 11.72 | <0.0001 |
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.19138/table-1
Indices of the WISC-IV and ENI-2 scales
The WISC-IV comprises 15 subtests that together provide a full-scale IQ score, derived from four core indices:
- Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI): Assesses verbal abilities, including vocabulary, comprehension, and general knowledge. This index is supported by the subtests Similarities, Vocabulary, and Comprehension.
- Perceptual Reasoning Index (PCI): Evaluates nonverbal reasoning skills, such as visuospatial abilities, perceptual organization, and problem-solving. The supporting subtests for this index are Block Design, Picture Concepts, and Matrix Reasoning.
- Working Memory Index (WMI): Measures the ability to temporarily retain and manipulate information. The subtests associated with this index include Digit Span and Letter–Number Sequencing.
- Processing Speed Index (PSI): Reflects the ability to perform simple tasks quickly and efficiently. Coding and Symbol Search are the subtests used for this index.
- Reading ability: Measures a child’s precision, comprehension, and speed of reading via several subtests, such as reading of syllables, words, nonwords, sentences, and a short story.
- Writing ability: Measures a child’s precision, narrative composition, and writing speed via several subtests, such as writing the child’s own name; dictation of syllables, words, nonwords, sentences, and a short story; and the precision to copy and recall an additional story.
- Mathematical ability: Measures a child’s ability to count, compare, calculate, and use logical-mathematical reasoning via subtests such as counting, number reading, number dictation, number comparison, ordering, doing forward and backward number sequences, mental calculation, written calculation and solving sentences of mathematical problems.
Table 2: Correlation matrix between five intelligence variables and three variables of academic performance.
| Reading | Writing | Mathematics | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VCI | Pearson’s r | 0.530* | 0.532* | 0.545* |
| Original p-value | 3.14E−11 | 2.70E−11 | 7.13E−12 | |
| FDR adjusted p-value | 5.17E−11 | 4.73E−11 | 1.66E−11 | |
| PRI | Pearson’s r | 0.314* | 0.323* | 0.487* |
| Original p-value | 1.98E−04 | 1.25E−04 | 1.84E−09 | |
| FDR adjusted p-value | 1.98E−04 | 1.39E−04 | 2.70E−09 | |
| WMI | Pearson’s r | 0.544* | 0.532* | 0.588* |
| Original p-value | 7.71E−12 | 2.63E−11 | 5.02E−14 | |
| FDR adjusted p-value | 1.66E−11 | 4.73E−11 | 1.56E−13 | |
| PSI | Pearson’s r | 0.316* | 0.352* | 0.362* |
| Original p-value | 1.81E−04 | 2.63E−05 | 1.45E−05 | |
| FDR adjusted p-value | 1.88E−04 | 3.20E−05 | 1.85E−05 | |
| Full-Scale IQ | Pearson’s r | 0.566* | 0.572* | 0.657* |
| Original p-value | 6.95E−13 | 3.40E−13 | 3.76E−18 | |
| FDR adjusted p-value | 1.77E−12 | 9.51E−13 | 2.11E−17 |
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.19138/table-2
Notes:
The correlation matrix shows pairwise relationships among the variables. The p-values were corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini–Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) method at q = 0.05.
*Significant correlations after correction appear with an asterisk.
VCI
Verbal Comprehension Index
PRI
Perceptual Reasoning Index
WMI
Working Memory Index
PSI
Processing Speed Index
EEG acquisition and data analysis
A 19-channel EEG (Ag/AgCl electrodes held by a cap according to the 10–20 International System; Electro-Cap International Inc., OH, USA), referenced to linked earlobes (A1A2), was recorded during a continuous 10-minute eyes-closed resting state condition, with a MEDICID IV system (Neuronic S.A.; Mexico City, Mexico) and a Track Walker v5.0 data system. In a dim-lit, air-conditioned, sound-proofed, and faradized room, the children were comfortably seated while being prompted to breathe naturally, stay relaxed, and fully awake. The amplifier’s bandwidth was set between 0.5 and 50 Hz. All electrode impedances were at or below 5 kΩ, and the signal was amplified with a gain of 20,000. The EEG data, re-coded to omit the name of the subjects, was sampled every 5 ms and edited offline by an expert neurophysiologist, who manually selected artifact-free and quasi-stationary epochs without the assistance of automatic algorithms for artifact rejection. Automatic artifact rejection is more useful for high-density EEG recordings, where the visual inspection of the data is considerably difficult. However, since our recordings were based on the standard setting of 19 channels, we opted to control the EEG editing to obtain clean enough recordings based on an expert’s criteria, thus avoiding automatic procedures which are not 100% guaranteed to produce a clean signal and which may also introduce undesirable effects on the data (Martínez-Briones et al., 2020).
Twenty-four artifact-free segments of 2.56 s were selected from each child. This segment length is commonly used both in clinical and experimental EEG studies since it avoids non-stationarities in the EEG signal and guarantees an appropriate frequency resolution of 0.39 Hz for the analysis. The 24 segments represent an accurate spectral description of the EEG signals, with more degrees of freedom than the number of electrodes, adding to at least a minute of representative EEG activity (Başar & Dumermuth, 1982; Bosch-Bayard et al., 2018).
A diagram of the following EEG processing steps is shown in Fig. 1. The EEG data was subjected to a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) to obtain a 0.78–50 Hz power spectrum with a frequency resolution of 0.39 Hz, and then corrected with a global scale factor (Hernández et al., 1994). The 127 narrow bands obtained per channel were grouped into seven broad bands: delta (0.7–3.6 Hz), theta (3.9–7.5 Hz), alpha-1 (7.8–9.8 Hz), alpha-2 (10.1–12.6 Hz), beta-1 (12.8–20.4 Hz), beta-2 (20.7–30.47 Hz), and gamma (30.85-50 Hz).
Figure 1: Diagram of the EEG processing steps. Boxes represent the data structure in a given state. Arrows represent a type of processing applied to the data. PCA, principal component analysis. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.19138/fig-1
To further reduce the dimensionality of the EEG data (now seven bands by 19 channels), a principal component analysis (PCA) with the varimax rotation that generates orthogonal components, i.e., independent enough to avoid collinearity in the regression analysis (Arruda et al., 1996; Ferrari-Díaz et al., 2022), was applied over the 133 variables. The Kaiser criterion (Kaiser, 1960) yielded 23 components that explained 87.53% of the total variance. Upon inspection, the first seven components represented functionally meaningful bands that explained 60.57% of the variance (see the PCA results in Data S1). They were distributed as follows:
Generalized (from most EEG channels) delta and theta power were better represented by Component 1 (C1). Generalized alpha-2 was represented by Component 2 (C2). Generalized alpha-1 was represented by Component 3 (C3). Generalized beta-1 was represented by Component 4 (C4). Frontocentral beta-2 was represented by Component 5 (C5). Frontal theta was represented by Component 6 (C6). Lastly, frontoparietal gamma was represented by Component 7 (C7).
The remaining sixteen components were excluded from the regression analysis due to being composed of the last 33 (out of 133) of the scattered channels of the theta, alpha, beta, or gamma bands, with none of the components being composed of more than two channels of the same frequency band, and thus providing no functional meaning to draw on. In contrast, the first seven selected components were composed of at least five channels of the same frequency band (C6), up to 29 channels of the same frequency band (C1).
To validate the appropriateness of the multiple regression analysis, we tested and met the assumptions of normality, homoscedasticity and no-multicollinearity. To this effect, a normal PP-plot (Fig. 2, left panel) shows that the regression standardized residual data greatly follows the normality line. Then, a scatterplot to check for homoscedasticity (Fig. 2, right panel) shows the lack of a clear pattern or skew, consistent with what homoscedastic data would look like. Finally, Table 3 shows that the variance inflation factor (VIF) values to test for multicollinearity were at 1.00, with values below 5.00 indicating minimal concern for multicollinearity.
Figure 2: Normal P-P plot and homoscedasticity scatterplot. The normal P-P plot of left panel shows that the observed cumulative probability greatly follows the expected cumulative probability, a pattern consistent with an acceptable level of normality of the data. The scatterplot of the right panel shows a patternless spread of the data, consistent with what homoscedastic data would look like. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.19138/fig-2
Table 3: Coefficients of the seven components for the regression model 1.
| Component | β | 95% CI | p | VIF | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LL | UL | ||||
| C1 | −3.66 | −5.85 | −1.47 | 0.001 | 1.00 |
| C2 | −0.97 | −3.16 | 1.23 | 0.386 | 1.00 |
| C3 | −1.10 | −3.30 | 1.09 | 0.321 | 1.00 |
| C4 | −0.92 | −3.12 | 1.27 | 0.408 | 1.00 |
| C5 | −0.47 | −2.66 | 1.73 | 0.675 | 1.00 |
| C6 | −0.71 | −2.90 | 1.48 | 0.523 | 1.00 |
| C7 | 2.55 | 0.36 | 4.75 | 0.023 | 1.00 |
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.19138/table-3
Notes:
CI
confidence interval
LL
lower limit
UL
upper limit
VIF
variance inflation factor
A note on between-group sex differences: Since girls comprised 37% of the LD group and 56% of the control group, a chi-square test revealed statistically significant sex differences (X2 = 4.06, p = 0.044). Such was an expected result, given that LDs are consistently found to be more prevalent in boys than girls (American Psychiatric Association, 2000; American Psychiatric Association, 2022). Thus, in a stepwise multiple linear regression analysis, the first seven EEG components were included as predictors to the Full-Scale IQ, and in the next step, the sex variable was added as a predictor.
A discriminant analysis was performed to further explore if the intelligence scores and the EEG components effectively distinguish between children with LDs and controls. In this analysis, next to the seven EEG components we added the four intelligence indices of the WISC-IV test: Verbal Comprehension (VC), Perceptual Reasoning (PR), Working Memory (WM), and Processing Speed (PS). One limitation of discriminant analysis is its tendency to overfit when the number of predictors is large relative to the sample size, which may result in overly optimistic classification accuracy. To address this, we employed jackknife classification (leave-one-out cross-validation), a robust cross-validation method that systematically tests each observation by excluding it from the training set and using the remaining data to build the model. This approach mitigates overfitting by ensuring that the classification performance is validated on unseen data for each iteration, providing a more reliable estimate of the model’s generalizability (Kuligowski, Pérez-Guaita & Quintás, 2016).
Statistical analyses were conducted using the IBM SPSS Statistics 26.0 software (SPSS Inc., Armonk, NY, USA) for Windows. Figure 3 was composed with MATLAB (The MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA, USA) version 9.13.0.2105380 (R2022b).
Figure 3: Partial regression plots of the EEG components significantly related to IQ. The EEG component 1 (C1) represents generalized delta and theta activity, while the EEG component 7 (C7) represents frontoparietal gamma activity. C1 had a significant inverse relationship to IQ while C7 was directly related. The different colors of the data points are only to highlight the contrast between the groups: subjects from the control (Ctrl) group appear in blue, while subjects from the group with learning disorders (LD) appear in red. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.19138/fig-3
Results
The four WISC-IV indices and the Full-Scale IQ were strongly correlated to the percentile scores of reading, writing, and mathematics (see Table 2). Correlation-based effect sizes (Maher, Markey & Ebert-May, 2013) yielded medium (perceptual reasoning and processing speed r-values were between .3 and .5) to large (verbal comprehension, working memory, and full-scale IQ r-values were above .5) effect sizes between the intelligence indices and the academic performance scores. This was a finding expected to be replicated in this sample of children, given the evidence of a strongly established relationship between intelligence and academic ability.
To assess the relationship between the EEG components and the Full-Scale IQ, two regression models, with and without the inclusion of sex, indeed showed the same direction of results. Model 1 (without sex) yielded a significant regression equation (F(7, 128) = 2.75, p = 0.011), with an r2 of 0.131. Significant individual EEG components identified were C1 (generalized delta and theta) with an inverse relationship (β = −3.66, 95% CI [−5.85 to −1.47], p = 0.001) to IQ, and C7 (frontoparietal gamma) with a direct relationship (β = 2.55, 95% CI [0.36–4.75], p = 0.023) to IQ (see Table 3).
Model 2 (with sex) was similar to Model 1, showing a significant regression equation (F(8, 127) = 2.39, p = 0.02), with an r2 of 0.131. There was no significant contribution of sex (β = 0.47, 95% CI [−5.08–4.15], p = 0.84). Moreover, the only significant individual EEG components identified were also C1 with an inverse relationship (β = −3.70, 95% CI [−5.93 to −1.46], p = 0.001) to IQ, and C7 with a direct relationship (β = 2.59, 95% CI [.36–4.83], p = 0.024) to IQ (see also Fig. 3). It should be noted that sex was included as a predictor in this regression model due to its established association with LD prevalence, with boys being more frequently diagnosed than girls. However, this finding of sex being no significant predictor indicates that sex does not necessarily affect cognitive or neurophysiological measures of pre-pubertal children such as those examined in this study. Rather, sex differences in the EEG could mainly start to appear during adolescence (Campbell et al., 2005). Thus, the observed patterns in EEG and intelligence were likely independent of sex-based differences.
A discriminant analysis was conducted to predict whether a child had an LD or not. Predictor variables were the WISC-IV indices and the first seven EEG components. Significant mean differences between groups were observed for the following predictors: the four WISC-IV indices (VC, PR, WM, PS; p-values < 0.0001) and the first and seventh EEG components (p-values: <0.0001, and 0.002). The discriminate function revealed a significant association between groups and the predictors mentioned above, accounting for 47.6% of between-group variability; however, a closer analysis of the structure matrix revealed six significant predictors, namely VC (0.68), WM (0.60), C1 (−0.46), PS (0.39), PR (0.38), and C7 (0.28); the other five EEG components were poor predictors. The cross-validated classification showed that overall (see Table 4), 82.4% of cases were correctly classified (control group cross-classification = 60%; LD cross-classification = 93.4%). Thus, performance in the WISC-4 test, coupled with EEG bands such as delta, theta, and gamma, was adequate for identifying children with LD.
Table 4: Classification results table.
| Predicted group membership (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Groups | Ctrl | LD | Total | |
| Original | Ctrl | 71.1 | 28.9 | 100 |
| LD | 4.4 | 95.6 | 100 | |
| Cross-validated | Ctrl | 60 | 40 | 100 |
| LD | 6.6 | 93.4 | 100 |
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.19138/table-4
Notes:
Original grouped cases correctly classified = 87.5%; cross-validated grouped cases correctly classified = 82.4%, via the jackknife classification method.
Discussion
Our research has shed light on the relationship between intelligence and the EEG of children with learning disorders. Unlike earlier work that primarily focused on academic performance, our study uniquely aimed to explore the association between the resting state EEG power spectrum and the intelligence of children with LDs via regression analysis. In line with the reported academic performance findings, our main hypothesis was that the IQ of children with LD would be negatively related to delta, theta, and beta and positively related to alpha and gamma power. The main finding of this work is that the resting state EEG is a significant predictor of intelligence, accounting for 13.1% of the IQ variance among school-age children. This prediction is primarily influenced by the contributions of some EEG bands, such as generalized delta and theta, which show an inverse relationship with IQ, and frontoparietal gamma power, which is directly related. Additionally, a secondary result of a discriminant analysis revealed that children with LDs exhibit generalized excesses of both delta and theta power in the resting-state EEG and a suppressed frontoparietal gamma power when compared to controls.
The bands in the EEG power spectrum were initially defined based on brain rhythms. Different rhythms have distinct origins, functional meanings, and behavior according to a given condition (Başar, 2013; Fernández et al., 2000; Knyazev, 2012; Mitchell et al., 2008). The most situation-sensitive band is alpha, appearing with power increases at rest with eyes closed in posterior sites, and it increases more throughout development; alpha desynchronizes with eyes open, and such level of desynchronization changes according to the difficulty of a given cognitive task (Pfurtscheller, Neuper & Berger, 1994). Considering the findings of greater alpha power at rest correlated with intelligence (Doppelmayr et al., 2002) and the children with LDs being often found with reduced alpha compared to controls, we expected to find differences between groups (via the discriminant analysis) and for alpha to be directly correlated with intelligence. This and an opposite tendency for the beta band (Bosch-Bayard et al., 2018), expected to relate inversely to intelligence, were the only nonsignificant results that differed from our main hypothesis. It should be noted, however, that alpha power has mixed support in its relationship with intelligence (Hilger et al., 2022), and our PCA analysis generalized alpha through most channels, possibly missing an effect at posterior sites. The same could apply to the beta band in relationship to the PCA, beta being somewhat generalized in this work but whose effect may appear more restricted in central channels. More limitations of this work are summarized below, including the notion that a PCA would improve its precision with higher density arrays and by analyzing the EEG at the sources (Fernández et al., 2002; Martínez-Briones et al., 2020).
Moving on to interpret the slower bands (delta and theta) found statistically significant in this work, academic ability indeed has been previously found negatively correlated with delta and theta (Harmony et al., 1990), and by separating children with LDs by levels of academic impairment, the worst performers do show excesses of delta and theta (Bosch-Bayard et al., 2018; Roca-Stappung et al., 2017). On the one hand, delta is normally suppressed at rest in healthy individuals, but its increase could indicate reduced alertness linked to diminished cognitive readiness, during which the individual is more likely to make mistakes if presented with a cognitive task (Knyazev, 2012; Lian et al., 2023); in line with this, Fernández et al. (1998) reported that a higher frontal delta activity prior to stimulus presentation predicted incorrect responses in a continuous performance task in children. On the other hand, the theta band is normally reduced in healthy individuals compared to abnormal populations, and its increase is associated with more effortful inefficiencies in less apt or more immature individuals (Eschmann, Bader & Mecklinger, 2018; Martínez-Briones et al., 2020). Nonetheless, the increases in delta and theta without a reduced alpha power found in this work do not fully support nor exclude the EEG maturation hypothesis of lagged neurofunctional development in learning disorders (Chabot et al., 2001; Fonseca et al., 2006; Guhan Seshadri et al., 2023). Considering the neural efficiency hypothesis, which states that more intelligent individuals exhibit a reduced brain activation reflecting greater efficiency, and adapting it to children with learning disorders (LD), this suggests that abnormal EEG patterns, such as excessive delta and theta activity, may reflect inefficient neural functioning that contributes to their cognitive challenges. Thus, this implication for children with LD frames the observed EEG abnormalities as potential markers of impaired cognitive efficiency, rather than purely maturational delays.
Then, in support of our findings of gamma power being decreased in LDs while directly related to intelligence, gamma has indeed been reported suppressed in worst academic performers compared to better performers (Roca-Stappung et al., 2017). Also, frontoparietal gamma has been found to be inversely correlated with measures of arousal via a possible link to the dorsal attentional network (Barry et al., 2010; Tombor et al., 2019). Then, the direct relationship found between frontoparietal gamma activity and IQ aligns with views regarding the role of attentional networks in higher-order cognitive processes, given that gamma power is thought to underlie neural processes associated with sustained attention, working memory, and information integration (Barry et al., 2010; Başar, 2013). However, while a suppressed frontoparietal gamma might point to impaired attentional integrity, its functional role should be clarified in future studies since gamma has been barely studied in populations of children with LDs, given that most of the literature on LDs does not go beyond the beta band.
The intelligence indices and the resting state EEG had a combined 82.4% success rate to discern between control children and those with LDs. The significant discriminating factors, ranked in order of importance as classifiers, were Verbal Comprehension, Working Memory, EEG Component 1 (generalized delta and theta), Processing Speed, Perceptual Reasoning, and EEG Component 7 (frontoparietal gamma). This result would add to the critique of the working memory hypothesis as the cognitive factor underlying LDs (Martínez-Briones, Fernández & Silva-Pereyra, 2023). Working memory does contribute to LDs, but not as much as verbal comprehension or all the cognitive indices combined that are factored by g (Zaboski, Kranzler & Gage, 2018). Then, the finding in this work of all the intelligence indices strongly correlated to the academic scores of reading, writing, and mathematics might add up to consider the positive manifold tendency towards g as a primary driver of LDs (Haier, Colom & Hunt, 2023).
The above would suggest that the DSM-5 and clinical practice could consider intelligence as more than an exclusion criterion in diagnosing LDs. In a normal distribution of intelligence, LDs often have lower-than-average IQs. While not intellectually disabled, they still do require extra attention and resources to increase their opportunities via special education programs and improvements in social policy (Wai & Bailey, 2021), e.g., the recently established “national dyslexia awareness month” (Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2020). Also, an intelligence test and the resting state EEG might provide markers that are good enough to identify children with LDs. Both are relatively cheap evaluation instruments with the potential to contribute more to the characterization, diagnosis, and treatment of children with LDs.
Lastly, we acknowledge three main limitations of this work: (1) a surface 19-channel EEG accentuates the low spatial resolution of the EEG that would be improved with higher density arrays. Since the relatively low density of electrodes does not capture fine-grained neural activity or localize the specific brain regions generating the observed signals, this results in a rough interpretation of EEG components, mainly by not distinguishing activity from adjacent or overlapping cortical areas. (2) Such drawback in special resolution would also be improved with an analysis of the sources that also overcome other problems (e.g., signal leakage due to volume conduction Biscay, Bosch-Bayard & Pascual-Marqui, 2018) of the surface EEG used in this work. A source analysis would indeed yield a basic identification of the brain regions involved in the intelligence of these children (Fernández et al., 2002; Pascual-Marqui, 2007). Thus, future studies employing high-density EEG arrays or source localization techniques could address these limitations and provide a more detailed understanding of the neural dynamics associated with intelligence and LDs. (3) Lastly, given that the neural correlates of intelligence are organized as brain regions linked into functional networks such as the frontoparietal and the default mode networks (Ramchandran, Zeien & Andreasen, 2019), an effective connectivity analysis at the sources that takes advantage of the high temporal resolution of the EEG could yield, also with better spatial resolution (Bosch-Bayard et al., 2022), more subtle types of causal relationships between neural networks and the intelligence of children with learning disorders.
Conclusions
Previous studies have consistently reported elevated delta and theta power and reduced alpha activity in children with LD during resting-state EEG. These findings align with our results, which extend the literature by examining the relationship between these EEG patterns and intelligence scores. Our findings corroborate and build upon the existing evidence by demonstrating that generalized delta and theta power negatively correlate with IQ, while frontoparietal gamma activity shows a positive relation.
Specifically, the resting-state EEG predicted 13.1% of the intelligence variance in school-age children. The following EEG patterns were related to the children’s intelligence: Generalized delta and theta predicted a lower IQ, bands whose functional meaning may indicate impaired alertness coupled with more inefficient cognitive processing in children with LD. Frontoparietal gamma power predicted a higher IQ, a band whose functional meaning may indicate an adequate state of arousal.
Additionally, an intelligence test and the resting state EEG were adequate to discriminate, with an 82.4% success rate, between children with typical development and LD, thus yielding such evaluations relevant enough for studying and diagnosing learning disorders.
Regarding future directions of this type of research, ventures should be directed towards improving the limitations of this work, i.e., to improve spatial accuracy with higher density arrays and via analyses at the sources instead of the surface EEG; also by studying the EEG connectivity between the network-based regions of interest underlying intelligence. Such efforts should as well be directed towards distinguishing between different subgroups of specific learning disorders, i.e., dyslexia, dysgraphia, and dyscalculia.
Additional Information and Declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare there are no competing interests.
Author Contributions
Benito Javier Martínez-Briones conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.
Thalía Fernández conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.
Juan Silva-Pereyra analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.
Human Ethics
The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):
All participants and their parents signed informed consent forms that were approved by the Ethical Committee of the Instituto de Neurobiología (INEU/SA/CB/146) of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM). Approval number INEU/SA/CB/146.
Data Availability
The following information was supplied regarding data availability:
The data is available in the Supplemental File and at Mendeley: Martínez-Briones, Benito Javier (2024), “EEG power spectrum and Intelligence of Children with Learning Disorders”, Mendeley Data, V1, doi: 10.17632/t6xw4sdfdc.1.
Funding
This work was supported by the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) Postdoctoral Program (POSDOC). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Altarac M, Saroha E. 2007. Lifetime prevalence of learning disability among US children. Pediatrics 119(Supplement 1):S77 LP-S83
American Psychiatric Association. 2000. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-IV-TR) (4th edition). Washington D.C.: American Psychiatric Association.
American Psychiatric Association. 2022. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5-TR. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association Publishing.
Arns M, Peters S, Breteler R, Verhoeven L. 2007. Different brain activation patterns in dyslexic children: evidence from EEG power and coherence patterns for the double-deficit theory of dyslexia. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience 6(1):175-190
Arruda JE, Weiler MD, Valentino D, Willis WG, Rossi JS, Stern RA, Gold SM, Costa L. 1996. A guide for applying principal-components analysis and confirmatory factor analysis to quantitative electroencephalogram data. International Journal of Psychophysiology 23(1–2):63-81
Babiloni C, Stella G, Buffo P, Vecchio F, Onorati P, Muratori C, Miano S, Gheller F, Antonaci L, Albertini G, Rossini PM+1 more. 2012. Cortical sources of resting state EEG rhythms are abnormal in dyslexic children. Clinical Neurophysiology 123(12):2384-2391
Başar E, Dumermuth G. 1982. EEG-brain dynamics: relation between EEG and brain evoked potentials. Computer Programs in Biomedicine 14(2):227-228
Başar E. 2013. A review of gamma oscillations in healthy subjects and in cognitive impairment. International Journal of Psychophysiology 90(2)
Barry RJ, Clarke AR, Hajos M, McCarthy R, Selikowitz M, Dupuy FE. 2010. Resting-state EEG gamma activity in children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Clinical Neurophysiology 121(11):1871-1877
Baumeister RF, Campbell JD, Krueger JI, Vohs KD. 2003. Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest 4(1):1-44
Biscay RJ, Bosch-Bayard JF, Pascual-Marqui RD. 2018. Unmixing EEG inverse solutions based on brain segmentation. Frontiers in Neuroscience 12(MAY):325
Bosch-Bayard J, Biscay RJ, Fernandez T, Otero GA, Ricardo-Garcell J, Aubert-Vazquez E, Evans AC, Harmony T. 2022. EEG effective connectivity during the first year of life mirrors brain synaptogenesis, myelination, and early right hemisphere predominance. NeuroImage 252:119035
Bosch-Bayard J, Galán-García L, Fernandez T, Lirio RB, Bringas-Vega ML, Roca-Stappung M, Ricardo-Garcell J, Harmony T, Valdes-Sosa PA. 2018. Stable sparse classifiers identify qEEG signatures that predict learning disabilities (NOS) severity. Frontiers in Neuroscience 11(JAN):1-13
Cainelli E, Vedovelli L, Carretti B, Bisiacchi P. 2023. EEG correlates of developmental dyslexia: a systematic review. Annals of Dyslexia 73(2):184-213
Campbell IG, Darchia N, Khaw WY, Higgins LM, Feinberg I. 2005. Sleep EEG evidence of sex differences in adolescent brain maturation. Sleep 28(5):637-643
Cárdenas SY, Silva-Pereyra J, Prieto-Corona B, Castro-Chavira SA, Fernández T. 2021. Arithmetic processing in children with dyscalculia: an event-related potential study. PeerJ 9:e10489
Chabot RJ, DiMichele F, Prichep L, John ER. 2001. The clinical role of computerized EEG in the evaluation and treatment of learning and attention disorders in children and adolescents. The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 13(2):171-186
Deary IJ. 2020. Intelligence: a very short introduction. In: Intelligence: a very short introduction. Oxford University Press eBooks.
Doppelmayr M, Klimesch W, Stadler W, Pöllhuber D, Heine C. 2002. EEG alpha power and intelligence. Intelligence 30(3):289-302
Eroğlu G, Teber S, Ertürk K, Kırmızı M, Ekici B, Arman F, Balcisoy S, Özcan YZ, Çetin M. 2022. A mobile app that uses neurofeedback and multi-sensory learning methods improves reading abilities in dyslexia: a pilot study. Applied Neuropsychology: Child 11(3):518-528
Eschmann KCJ, Bader R, Mecklinger A. 2018. Topographical differences of frontal-midline theta activity reflect functional differences in cognitive control abilities. Brain and Cognition 123(February):57-64
Fernández T, Harmony T, Fernández-Bouzas A, Silva J, Herrera W, Santiago-Rodríguez E, Sánchez L. 2002. Sources of EEG activity in learning disabled children. Clinical EEG and Neuroscience 33(4):160-164
Fernández T, Harmony T, Silva J, Galán L, Díaz-Comas L, Bosch J, Rodríguez M, Fernández-Bouzasa Yáñez G, Otero G, Marosi E. 1998. Relationship of specific EEG frequencies at specific brain areas with performance. Neuroreport 9(16):3681-3687
Fernández T, Harmony T, Silva-Pereyra J, Fernández-Bouzasa Gersenowies J, Galán L, Carbonell F, Marosi E, Otero G, Valdés SI. 2000. Specific EEG frequencies at specific brain areas and performance. Neuroreport 11(12):2663-2668
Fernández T, Silva-Pereyra J, Prieto-Corona B, Rodríguez Camacho M, Reynoso-Alcántara V. 2014. Event-related brain potentials during a semantic priming task in children with learning disabilities not otherwise specified. PLOS ONE 9(8):e105318
Ferrari-Díaz M, Bravo-Chávez RI, Silva-Pereyra J, Fernández T, García-Peña C, Rodríguez-Camacho M. 2022. Verbal intelligence and leisure activities are associated with cognitive performance and resting-state electroencephalogram. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience 14:921518
Fina AD, Sánchez-Escobedo P, Hollingworth L. 2012. Annotations on Mexico’s WISC-IV: a validity study. Applied Neuropsychology: Child 1(1):6-17
Fonseca LC, Tedrus GMAS, Chiodi MG, Cerqueira JN, Tonelotto JMF. 2006. Quantitative EEG in children with learning disabilities: analysis of band power. Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria 64:376-381
Gevins A, Smith ME, McEvoy L, Yu D. 1997. High-resolution EEG mapping of cortical activation related to working memory: effects of task difficulty, type of processing, and practice. Cerebral Cortex 7(4):374-385
Guhan Seshadri NP, Agrawal S, Kumar Singh B, Geethanjali B, Mahesh V, Pachori RB. 2023. EEG based classification of children with learning disabilities using shallow and deep neural network. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control 82:104553
Haier RJ, Colom R, Hunt E. 2023. The genetic basis of intelligence. In: The science of human intelligence. Cambridge University Press eBooks.
Harmony T. 2013. The functional significance of delta oscillations in cognitive processing. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience 7(DEC):1-10
Harmony T, Hinojosa G, Marosi E, Becker J, Rodriguez M, Reyes A, Rocha C. 1990. Correlation between eeg spectral parameters and an educational evaluation. International Journal of Neuroscience 54(1–2):147-155
Hernández JL, Valdés P, Biscay R, Virues T, Szava S, Bosch J, Riquenes A, Clark I. 1994. A global scale factor in brain topography. International Journal of Neuroscience 76(3–4):267-278
Hilger K, Spinath FM, Troche S, Schubert AL. 2022. The biological basis of intelligence: benchmark findings. Intelligence 93:101665
Honkanen R, Rouhinen S, Palva JM, Wang SH, Palva S. 2015. Gamma oscillations underlie the maintenance of feature-specific information and the contents of visual working memory. Cerebral Cortex 25(10):3788-3801
Jäncke L, Alahmadi N. 2016. Resting state EEG in children with learning disabilities. Clinical EEG and Neuroscience 47(1):24-36
Jäncke L, Saka MY, Badawood O, Alhamadi N. 2019. Resting-state electroencephalogram in learning-disabled children: power and connectivity analyses. NeuroReport 30(2):95-101
Johnson ES, Humphrey M, Mellara DF, Woods K, Swanson HL. 2010. Cognitive processing deficits and students with specific learning disabilities: a selective meta-analysis of the literature. Learning Disability Quarterly 33(1):3-18
Johnson W, Deary IJ, Carothers A. 2009. A role for the X chromosome in sex differences in variability in general intelligence? Perspectives on Psychological Science 4(6):598-611
Kaiser HF. 1960. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20(1):141-151
Klimesch W, Sauseng P, Hanslmayr S. 2007. EEG alpha oscillations: the inhibition-timing hypothesis. Brain Research Reviews 53(1):63-88
Knyazev GG. 2012. EEG delta oscillations as a correlate of basic homeostatic and motivational processes. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 36(1):677-695
Kraus BT, Perez D, Ladwig Z, Seitzman BA, Dworetsky A, Petersen SE, Gratton C. 2021. Network variants are similar between task and rest states. NeuroImage 229:117743
Kuligowski J, Pérez-Guaita D, Quintás G. 2016. Application of discriminant analysis and cross-validation on proteomics data. Methods in Molecular Biology 1362:175-184
Lagae L. 2008. Learning disabilities: definitions, epidemiology, diagnosis, and intervention strategies. Pediatric Clinics of North America 55:1259-1268
Lian J, Xu L, Song T, Peng Z, Zhang Z, An X, Chen S, Zhong X, Shao Y. 2023. Reduced resting-state EEG power spectra and functional connectivity after 24 and 36 h of sleep deprivation. Brain Sciences 13(6):949
Lin CCK. 2005. EEG manifestations in metabolic encephalopathy. Acta Neurologica Taiwanica 14(3):151-161
MacCann C, Jiang Y, Brown LER, Double KS, Bucich M, Minbashian A. 2019. Emotional intelligence predicts academic performance: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 146(2):150-186
Maher JM, Markey JC, Ebert-May D. 2013. The other half of the story: effect size analysis in quantitative research. CBE Life Sciences Education 12(3):315-575
Mammadov S. 2022. Big five personality traits and academic performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Personality 90(2):222-255
Martínez-Briones BJ, Fernández T, Silva-Pereyra J. 2023. Semantic priming and its link to verbal comprehension and working memory in children with learning disorders. Brain Sciences 13(7):1022
Martínez-Briones BJ, Fernández-Harmony T, Gómez NG, Biscay-Lirio RJ, Bosch-Bayard J. 2020. Working memory in children with learning disorders: an EEG power spectrum analysis. Brain Sciences 10(11):817
Martínez-Briones BJ, Flores-Gallegos R, Cárdenas SY, Barrera-Díaz BE, Fernández T, Silva-Pereyra J. 2023. Effects of neurofeedback on the self-concept of children with learning disorders. Frontiers in Psychology 14:1167961
Matute E, Inozemtseva O, Gonzalez AL, Chamorro Y. 2014. The Neuropsychol Evaluation Children’s Logic (ENI): history and theoretical foundations of its validation, A practical approach to its use and diagnostic value. Neuropsychology Magazine, Neuropsychiatry and Neurosciences 14(1):68-95 (In Spanish)
McArthur GM, Filardi N, Francis DA, Boyes ME, Badcock NA. 2020. Self-concept in poor readers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PeerJ 8:e8772
Mitchell DJ, Mcnaughton N, Flanagan D, Kirk IJ. 2008. Progress in neurobiology frontal-midline theta from the perspective of hippocampal ‘theta’. Progress in Neurobiology 86:156-185
Neubauer AC, Fink A. 2009. Intelligence and neural efficiency: measures of brain activation versus measures of functional connectivity in the brain. Intelligence 37(2):223-229
Neubauer AC, Grabner RH, Fink A, Neuper C. 2005. Intelligence and neural efficiency: further evidence of the influence of task content and sex on the brain-IQ relationship. Cognitive Brain Research 25(1):217-225
Pascual-Marqui RD. 2007. Discrete, 3D distributed, linear imaging methods of electric neuronal activity. Part 1: exact, zero error localization. ArXiv.
Peng P, Barnes M, Wang CC, Wang W, Li S, Swanson HL, Dardick W, Tao S. 2018. Meta-analysis on the relation between reading and working memory. Psychological Bulletin 144(1):48-61
Pfurtscheller G, Klimesch W. 1992. Event-related synchronization and desynchronization of alpha and beta waves in a cognitive task. In: Induced rhythms in the brain.
Pfurtscheller G, Neuper C, Berger J. 1994. Source localization using event-related desynchronization (ERD) within the alpha band Cz. Brain Topography 6(4):269-275
Ramchandran K, Zeien E, Andreasen NC. 2019. Distributed neural efficiency: intelligence and age modulate adaptive allocation of resources in the brain. Trends in Neuroscience and Education 15:48-61
Roca-Stappung M, Fernández T, Bosch-Bayard J, Harmony T, Ricardo-Garcell J. 2017. Electroencephalographic characterization of subgroups of children with learning disorders. PLOS ONE 12(7):e0179556
Schapkin SA, Raggatz J, Hillmert M, Böckelmann I. 2020. EEG correlates of cognitive load in a multiple choice reaction task. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis 80(1):76-89
Schuchardt K, Maehler C, Hasselhorn M. 2008. Working memory deficits in children with specific learning disorders. Journal of Learning Disabilities 41(6):514-523
Semrud-Clikeman M. 2005. Neuropsychological aspects for evaluating learning disabilities. Communication Disorders Quarterly 26(4):242-247
Shaywitz SE, Escobar MD, Shaywitz BA, Fletcher JM, Makuch R. 1992. Evidence that dyslexia may represent the lower tail of a normal distribution of reading ability. New England Journal of Medicine 326(3):145-150
Shaywitz S, Shaywitz J. 2020. Overcoming dyslexia: completely revised and updated (2nd edition). Hachette: Penguin Random House LLC.
Smith DS, Nagle RJ. 1995. Self-perceptions and social comparisons among children with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities 28(6):364-371
Spitzer B, Haegens S. 2017. Beyond the status quo: a role for beta oscillations in endogenous content (RE)activation. eNeuro 4(4):ENEURO.0170-17.2017
Swanson HL. 2020. Specific learning disabilities as a working memory deficit. In: Handbook of educational psychology and students with special needs. Routledge eBooks.
Thiele JA, Faskowitz J, Sporns O, Hilger K. 2022. Multitask brain network reconfiguration is inversely associated with human intelligence. Cerebral Cortex 32(19):4172-4182
Tombor L, Kakuszi B, Papp S, Réthelyi J, Bitter I, Czobor P. 2019. Decreased resting gamma activity in adult attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. World Journal of Biological Psychiatry 20(9):691-702
Wai J, Bailey DH. 2021. How intelligence research can inform education and public policy. In: The Cambridge handbook of intelligence and cognitive neuroscience. Cambridge University Press eBooks.
Wechsler D. 2010. WISC-IV, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-IV. In: Technical and interpretation manual. Madrid: TEA Ediciones, S.A. (In Spanish)
Willcutt EG, Petrill SA, Wu S, Boada R, Defries JC, Olson RK, Pennington BF. 2013. Comorbidity between reading disability and math disability: concurrent psychopathology, functional impairment, and neuropsychological functioning. Journal of Learning Disabilities 46(6):500-516
World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. 2013. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 310(20):2191-2194
Zaboski BA, Kranzler JH, Gage NA. 2018. Meta-analysis of the relationship between academic achievement and broad abilities of the Cattell-horn-Carroll theory. Journal of School Psychology 71:42-56
Benito Javier Martínez-Briones1, Thalía Fernández2, Juan Silva-Pereyra1
1 Facultad de Estudios Superiores Iztacala, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Tlalnepantla, México, Mexico
2 Departamento de Neurobiología Conductual y Cognitiva, Instituto de Neurobiología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Querétaro, Mexico
© 2025 Martínez-Briones et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.