Brain scans of children with autism studied
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Stanford University researchers have unearthed clues about the formidable brains of some autistic children, suggesting that the diagnosis may signal a different cognitive style, not disability.
Superior math skills were found in autistic San Francisco Bay area children with average intelligence compared with matched children who were not autistic.
The two groups' brain scans were different as well. Images of the autistic children's brains while calculating math problems revealed a different pattern of activity from those of non-autistic children.
This small but important study, the first of its type, “makes us better aware of the unique talents that these people have, which could help them have better academic and professional lives,” said postdoctoral scholar Teresa Iuculano, lead author of the study.
“We think it could be reassuring for parents,” she said. The study is being published online Saturday in the journal Biological Psychiatry.
Like all people with autism, the children had difficulty with social interactions. But they showed strengths as well, according to the team of scientists at the Stanford University School of Medicine and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital.
“It is not necessarily a deficient brain, but a different brain,” said Iuculano.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Brown family blasts prosecutor’s handling of case
- 2 female bombers kill 30 in Nigeria
- Wet basements in Buffalo as flooding fears ease
- Ohio dairy farmers cashing in on gas well boom
- With no indictment, chaos fills Ferguson streets
- Security breach in Yemen let fraudulent applicants enter U.S.
- Defense Secretary Hagel resigns amid national security challenges
- Report lays out red flags, failures in rearing of shooter at Conn. school
- Mystery of deaths of 2 children, wounding of third and mother
- Feds put brakes on green energy edict of renewable fuel standard
- Care for a glass of sewage? Calif. city to make wastewater potable