Neurocognitive Underpinnings of Learning Disabilities: A Comprehensive Examination

I. Introduction to Learning Disabilities and their Neurocognitive Complexity

A. Defining Learning Disabilities: Heterogeneity and Prevalence

Specific learning disability (SLD) is formally understood as a disorder affecting one or more fundamental psychological processes involved in the comprehension or use of language, whether spoken or written. This can manifest as an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or perform mathematical calculations.¹ This definition, often enshrined in legislative frameworks such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in the United States, underscores the intrinsic, neurobiological nature of these challenges, distinguishing them from learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of intellectual disability, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.³

The landscape of learning disabilities is diverse, encompassing several common types. These prominently include dyslexia, characterized by difficulties in reading; dysgraphia, which pertains to difficulties in writing; and dyscalculia, involving difficulties in mathematics.² Beyond these, other recognized learning disabilities include auditory processing disorder (APD), language processing disorder (LPD), nonverbal learning disabilities (NVLD), and visual perceptual/visual motor deficits.⁵ This heterogeneity is a critical aspect, as one individual with an LD may not present with the same learning problems as another.²

Learning disabilities are remarkably prevalent. Estimates suggest that as many as one in five people in the United States may have a learning disability, with nearly one million children (ages 6 through 21) receiving special education services in schools due to an LD.² Specific prevalence rates vary by disorder; for example, dyslexia is estimated to affect between 5-17% of the population ⁸, while dyscalculia is estimated to affect 3-8%.¹⁰ It is crucial to differentiate learning disabilities from intellectual disabilities. Individuals with LDs typically possess average or even above-average intelligence; their brains simply process information differently.² This distinction is fundamental, emphasizing that LDs are not indicative of a person’s overall cognitive capacity but rather reflect specific information processing differences.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), adopts an overarching category of “Specific Learning Disorder,” with specifiers to denote impairments in reading (often referred to as dyslexia), written expression (often encompassing dysgraphia), and mathematics (often referred to as dyscalculia).⁶ A diagnosis according to DSM-5 criteria requires persistent difficulties in at least one academic area for at least six months despite targeted interventions, academic skills that are substantially and quantifiably below those expected for the individual’s chronological age, causing significant interference with academic or occupational performance, or with activities of daily living. These difficulties must begin during school-age years, though they may not become fully manifest until the demands for those affected academic skills exceed the individual’s limited capacities. Furthermore, the learning difficulties must not be better accounted for by intellectual disabilities, uncorrected visual or auditory acuity, other mental or neurological disorders, psychosocial adversity, lack of proficiency in the language of academic instruction, or inadequate educational instruction.³

The inherent variety in the types and manifestations of LDs presents a significant challenge to the development of a single, overarching neurobiological model. The evolution of diagnostic approaches, moving from models that relied heavily on a “severe discrepancy” between IQ and academic achievement ² towards frameworks like Response to Intervention (RTI) and comprehensive clinical assessments ², reflects a more nuanced understanding. This shift acknowledges that LDs are not merely a gap in expected versus actual performance but are rooted in multifaceted neurocognitive differences. Consequently, research must diligently investigate both the unique neurocognitive markers specific to each type of LD and the shared markers that may cut across different diagnostic categories, rather than pursuing a monolithic explanation. The significant prevalence rates further underscore the public health and educational imperative for robust research into their fundamental causes.

Furthermore, the diagnostic criterion that meticulously excludes other potential causes for learning difficulties—such as sensory impairments, global intellectual disability, or environmental and cultural factors ³—implicitly directs the focus towards an intrinsic, neurobiological origin as the primary distinguishing feature of SLDs. This systematic process of elimination reinforces the central premise that understanding these brain-based differences is paramount to comprehending the nature of learning disabilities. This has direct consequences for assessment methodologies, necessitating comprehensive evaluations that can isolate the specific neurocognitive profile underlying the observed learning challenges.³

To provide a clear overview of these conditions, Table 1 summarizes common learning disabilities and their primary characteristics.

Table 1: Overview of Common Learning Disabilities

Type of LD	Primary Affected Skills	Key Cognitive Characteristics Often Associated
Dyslexia	Reading (word recognition accuracy, fluency, decoding, comprehension), spelling, written expression	Deficits in phonological processing, phonemic awareness, rapid automatized naming, verbal working memory 2
Dyscalculia	Mathematics (number sense, fact retrieval, calculation accuracy/fluency, mathematical reasoning)	Difficulties with quantity representation, numerical magnitude processing, visuospatial working memory, understanding math symbols and concepts 2
Dysgraphia	Written expression (handwriting legibility, spelling, grammar, punctuation, clarity/organization of written ideas)	Poor motor planning, spatial awareness, difficulty translating thoughts to writing, challenges with fine motor skills involved in writing 2
Auditory Processing Disorder (APD)	Processing sounds, especially speech; distinguishing sounds, filtering background noise, remembering auditory information	Difficulty interpreting auditory information despite normal hearing, challenges with sound discrimination, auditory sequencing, and auditory memory 5
Language Processing Disorder (LPD)	Understanding and/or expressing spoken language; attaching meaning to words, sentences, and stories	A subset of APD specifically impacting the processing of linguistic information; difficulties with receptive and/or expressive language 5
Nonverbal Learning Disabilities (NVLD)	Interpreting nonverbal cues (facial expressions, body language, tone of voice), visual-spatial reasoning, coordination	Strong verbal skills but difficulty with social perception, abstract reasoning, visual-spatial organization, motor coordination, and adapting to new situations 5
Visual Perceptual/Visual Motor Deficit	Interpreting visual information, hand-eye coordination, fine motor skills related to visual tasks	Difficulty discriminating visual details, tracking, copying shapes, organizing visual information; challenges with tasks like drawing, cutting, assembling puzzles 5

Sources: ²

B. The Importance of Understanding Neurocognitive Underpinnings

The consensus among researchers is that learning disabilities stem from differences in brain structure and/or function, which in turn affect how an individual processes information.² Historically, neuropsychological research has endeavored to identify the specific neural mechanisms that underlie learning disabilities, with the ultimate aim of informing more effective treatments and interventions.¹⁹ A deep understanding of these neurocognitive profiles—the characteristic patterns of brain structure, function, and cognitive processing associated with LDs—is therefore considered essential for pinpointing the root causes of learning differences.¹³ Neurobiology provides the tools to characterize distinct brain regions and their specialized functions, thereby aiding in the determination of the internal processes that contribute to various neurological disorders, including those that manifest as learning disabilities.²⁰

Adopting a neurocognitive approach allows for a progression beyond mere symptom-level descriptions of academic difficulties. It facilitates an investigation into the causal chain that links inherent brain differences to variations in cognitive processing, which subsequently lead to observable challenges in learning. This pursuit of fundamental understanding offers a more profound perspective than purely educational or behavioral viewpoints can provide. The very endeavor to identify the “root causes” of learning differences necessitates a focus on the brain as the origin of these variations.¹⁵ This line of inquiry suggests that interventions designed to target these neurocognitive roots, perhaps by leveraging principles of neuroplasticity ²², may hold greater promise for efficacy than those that solely address the academic symptoms without considering their underlying basis.

Furthermore, a significant implication of focusing on the neurocognitive underpinnings of learning disabilities is its potential to destigmatize these conditions. By framing LDs as neurobiological differences rather than as deficits in effort, motivation, or general intelligence, a more accurate and compassionate understanding can be fostered. Numerous sources affirm that individuals with LDs are not “dumb” or “lazy” and often possess average or above-average intelligence.² Reinforcing this message with evidence of brain-based differences can have profoundly positive effects on the self-esteem and psychological well-being of individuals with LDs, as well as on broader societal attitudes and educational practices.

II. General Neurobiological Correlates of Learning Disabilities

Learning disabilities are fundamentally neurodevelopmental conditions, understood to be caused by differences in brain structure and function that affect how individuals process information.⁷ These neurological variations are not uniform but represent a spectrum of atypicalities that can impact learning in diverse ways.

A. Atypical Brain Development and Structural Variations

Evidence indicates that differences in the physical structure of the brain can be associated with learning disabilities.⁷ Neuroimaging studies have identified various structural abnormalities in children with LDs. For instance, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has revealed the presence of cysts in individuals with Asperger disorder and nonverbal learning disabilities, and research has correlated reduced grey matter volume in specific brain regions with poorer mathematical performance.²⁴ Such findings suggest that certain structural anomalies may serve as potential biomarkers for early diagnosis.

Malformations of cortical development (MCDs) represent a category of conditions where the brain’s cerebral cortex does not develop normally due to abnormal neuron formation or migration during fetal development.²⁵ These MCDs can disrupt brain function significantly, leading to outcomes such as developmental delay, intellectual disability, and epilepsy.²⁵ While not all learning disabilities are classified as MCDs, the study of these conditions illustrates how early disruptions in brain architecture can have profound and lasting impacts on cognitive and learning capabilities. MCDs can result from genetic causes, infections during pregnancy, or metabolic issues, and are divided into groups based on when they occur during brain development, leading to conditions like microcephaly (small brain volume), megalencephaly (brain overgrowth), or cortical dysplasia (disorganization of neurons).²⁵

Another critical aspect of brain structure relevant to learning is white matter. White matter consists of nerve fibers (axons) covered by myelin, a fatty substance that facilitates rapid communication between different brain regions.²⁷ Abnormalities or damage to white matter can impair this communication, affecting cognitive functions such as learning, memory, problem-solving, and processing speed.²⁷ While “white matter disease” often refers to conditions caused by factors like aging or vascular issues ²⁷, the underlying principle of compromised white matter integrity impacting cognitive function is highly relevant to learning disabilities. Indeed, specific white matter tract abnormalities, such as those in the arcuate fasciculus, have been frequently implicated in dyslexia.²⁰

The presence of these structural brain differences, often originating early in development (e.g., MCDs, variations in grey or white matter volume observed in childhood ²⁴), strongly supports the view that learning disabilities are not primarily acquired conditions but have a distinct neurodevelopmental trajectory. This has significant implications for the pursuit of early identification methods and the development of preventative interventions. If structural differences are detectable early, it suggests a biological predisposition, lending credence to research focused on identifying early biomarkers ⁹ and designing interventions aimed at mitigating the impact of these differences before substantial academic failure and its associated emotional consequences take hold.

Moreover, the diversity of structural differences reported across various learning disabilities or comorbid conditions—ranging from cortical malformations ²⁵ to variations in grey matter volume ²⁴ and white matter tract integrity ²⁰—points towards a multitude of etiological pathways. Even when some cognitive symptoms appear similar across different LDs, the underlying neuropathology can be distinct. For example, the presence of cysts in some nonverbal LDs ²⁴ presents a different structural picture than the white matter connectivity issues commonly found in dyslexia.²⁹ This suggests that “learning disability” functions as an umbrella term for a range of conditions that may share some common cognitive challenges (e.g., slow processing speed) but can arise from different foundational brain atypicalities. This reinforces the necessity for precise neurocognitive profiling to understand the specific nature of an individual’s learning disability.

B. Functional Brain Differences and Altered Connectivity Patterns

Beyond structural variations, learning disabilities are most often characterized by differences in how the brain functions.⁷ Neuroimaging techniques, particularly functional MRI (fMRI), have been instrumental in revealing these functional abnormalities.²⁴ A key finding is the presence of atypical functional connectivity in individuals with LDs. Functional connectivity refers to the synchronized activity between different brain regions, reflecting how effectively they work together as networks. Altered connectivity patterns, for example within the default mode network (DMN)—a network active during rest and involved in internally focused thought—have been observed in children with specific learning disabilities.²⁴

Dyslexia, for instance, is increasingly understood as involving a defect in the brain’s ability to integrate information across different functional systems. This is often linked to abnormal functioning of “hub” regions—critical areas that connect information between various systems and large-scale Resting State Networks (RSNs).²⁰ Similarly, research into conditions like Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), which frequently co-occur with learning disabilities, has revealed abnormalities in the functioning and connectivity of extensive brain networks, including frontal, temporal, parietal, and striato-thalamic circuits. These studies show complex patterns of both shared and distinctive under- and over-activation, as well as altered connectivity, between individuals with these conditions and typically developing peers.³¹

The growing body of evidence highlighting altered functional connectivity, rather than solely dysfunction in isolated brain regions, signifies an important shift in understanding the neurobiology of many learning disabilities. This perspective emphasizes the brain’s nature as a highly interconnected network. It suggests that LDs can arise not just from damage or atypicality in a specific processing module, but from inefficient or disrupted communication between critical brain areas. This “disconnection syndrome” viewpoint implies that even if individual brain regions are structurally intact, their inability to synchronize activity and share information effectively can lead to the cognitive deficits and learning difficulties characteristic of LDs. This has direct implications for interventions, suggesting that strategies aimed at strengthening these network connections or fostering compensatory pathways could be beneficial.

Furthermore, the observation of both hypoactivation (reduced activity) and hyperactivation (increased activity) in different learning disabilities, or even within the same LD under different conditions ³³, points to the existence of complex compensatory mechanisms or differing underlying neurocognitive profiles. For example, struggling readers sometimes exhibit hyperactivation in right hemisphere regions during reading tasks ³⁴, which may represent a compensatory effort to overcome deficits in typical left-hemisphere language networks. However, such hyperactivation is not always adaptive and could reflect less efficient processing or the recruitment of additional, less specialized brain areas. Distinguishing between adaptive and maladaptive patterns of brain activity and connectivity is a crucial ongoing challenge for research, essential for accurately interpreting neuroimaging findings and designing effective, targeted interventions.

C. Shared Neural Substrates Across Learning Disabilities

While specific learning disabilities like dyslexia and dyscalculia have distinct primary symptoms and are associated with unique patterns of brain atypicality, there is also evidence of shared neural substrates and cognitive deficits across different types of LDs. Deficits in core cognitive processes such as working memory and processing speed appear to be common across various LDs and are also frequently observed in ADHD, potentially contributing to the high rates of comorbidity among these conditions.¹⁹ These domain-general cognitive functions often rely on distributed brain networks, particularly fronto-parietal systems.³⁶

The frequent co-occurrence of math disability (MD) and reading disability (RD) further suggests the involvement of shared underlying brain systems.⁴⁰ One hypothesis is that this comorbidity arises from impairments in domain-general brain systems, notably the prefrontal cortex (PFC), which supports executive functions, attention, and working memory—all crucial for both mathematical and reading tasks.⁴⁰ The parietal cortex has also been implicated as a shared processing station, vital for high-level integration and computation relevant to both domains.⁴⁰ A “core-periphery” model of brain organization posits that variability in the connectivity of multimodal association cortices (the “periphery” of the network) might reflect a shared origin for seemingly distinct neurodevelopmental disorders.⁴¹ Research from institutions like Amen Clinics also suggests that abnormal function in brain areas involved in general cognitive processes such as language, problem-solving, attention, memory, and information processing is a common feature across various learning disabilities.⁴²

The existence of these shared neural substrates and associated cognitive deficits (particularly in executive functions, working memory, and processing speed) lends strong support to a dimensional view of learning disabilities. This perspective suggests that rather than being entirely discrete categories, LDs may represent different manifestations of impairments in common underlying neurocognitive processes. Such a dimensional approach challenges purely categorical diagnostic systems by highlighting that foundational systems for learning, like fronto-parietal networks supporting executive functions ³⁸, may be vulnerable across multiple LDs.¹⁹ Dysfunction in these shared systems could then manifest differently—as dyslexia, dyscalculia, or another LD—depending on its interaction with other, more domain-specific neural systems (e.g., language networks in the case of dyslexia, or numerical processing networks in dyscalculia) and individual genetic predispositions. This understanding has significant implications for the development of transdiagnostic interventions that target these core cognitive processes, potentially yielding benefits across a range of learning difficulties.

Consequently, the high rates of comorbidity observed between different LDs and with conditions like ADHD ⁴³ are likely not coincidental. They may well reflect shared etiological pathways involving these common neural substrates and cognitive vulnerabilities.¹⁹ For example, an underlying impairment in working memory, supported by prefrontal cortical networks, could contribute to difficulties in decoding words (a hallmark of dyslexia) as well as challenges in performing multi-step mathematical calculations (a feature of dyscalculia). This implies that interventions for individuals with comorbid conditions might achieve greater efficacy by addressing these shared underlying deficits, rather than treating each diagnosed disorder in complete isolation as if they were entirely separate entities.

III. The Neurocognitive Profile of Dyslexia

Dyslexia, a specific learning disability characterized by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition, poor spelling, and decoding abilities ⁴⁶, has been extensively studied from a neurocognitive perspective. Research has identified a complex array of structural and functional brain differences, as well as atypical neural connectivity patterns, that are associated with this condition.

A. Neurological Basis: Language Networks, Visual Word Form Area, and Connectivity

The neurological underpinnings of dyslexia primarily involve atypicalities within the brain’s language and visual processing networks, particularly in the left hemisphere, which is dominant for language in most individuals.⁴⁶

1. Structural Differences

Several structural brain variations have been consistently linked to dyslexia. These include a reported global reduction in neuroplasticity, which is the brain’s ability to reorganize and form new neural connections, especially within the left-hemispheric regions crucial for language and reading.20 Paradoxically, increased myelination has been observed in the left perisylvian cortex, a region encompassing critical language areas like Broca’s area (involved in speech production) and Wernicke’s area (important for speech comprehension).20 Conversely, individuals with dyslexia or at risk for it often show reduced gray matter volume and cortical thickness in areas surrounding the perisylvian cortex, particularly at the junctions of the parietal, temporal, and occipital lobes.20

Early developmental differences are also evident. Children with a familial risk for dyslexia may exhibit abnormal sulcal patterns (the folds and grooves of the brain) and atypical neural connectivity from an early age. This includes findings of decreased white matter integrity in the arcuate fasciculus, a major fiber tract connecting temporal and frontal language areas.²⁰ Morphological changes in the corpus callosum, the structure that facilitates communication between the two brain hemispheres, have also been associated with dyslexia, potentially impacting the inter-hemispheric processing required for complex reading tasks.²⁰

A particularly salient finding is related to the Visual Word Form Area (VWFA), a region in the left occipito-temporal cortex that becomes specialized for recognizing written words. Research indicates that a small or even absent VWFA is a persistent trait in individuals with dyslexia, even following intervention designed to improve reading skills.⁴⁸ Furthermore, some brain regions, such as the posterior corpus callosum and the temporoparietal areas (involved in reading and attention networks), may reach peak maturation earlier than is typical in individuals with dyslexia.²⁰

The presence of such structural findings, especially those identified early in development or in individuals at familial risk for dyslexia (e.g., VWFA differences, arcuate fasciculus atypicalities ²⁰), provides strong support for a neurodevelopmental origin of the disorder. This suggests that dyslexia is not merely a consequence of insufficient reading experience but reflects inherent differences in brain organization. The persistence of certain structural characteristics, such as the size of the VWFA, despite intensive reading intervention ⁴⁸, implies that while interventions can foster compensatory neural pathways and improve reading skills, they may not fully “normalize” all underlying brain structures. This has important implications for setting realistic intervention goals and understanding the long-term trajectory for individuals with dyslexia.

The variety of structural anomalies reported—encompassing gray matter volume, white matter integrity, myelination patterns, and even the timing of cortical maturation—underscores the multifaceted nature of brain differences in dyslexia. It is not a single, isolated structural defect but rather a complex pattern of atypical development that affects an interconnected network of brain regions. Reduced gray matter in key reading areas ²⁰, altered white matter tracts like the arcuate fasciculus ²⁹, and atypical myelination ²⁰ all point to different facets of neural development and connectivity being impacted. This complexity likely contributes to the observed heterogeneity within the dyslexic population, with different individuals potentially exhibiting varying degrees and combinations of these structural differences.

2. Functional Differences

Functionally, dyslexia is consistently associated with hypoactivation (reduced activity) in left hemisphere posterior brain regions during tasks that involve language and processing printed words.8 These regions include the temporoparietal cortex (critical for phonological processing and mapping print to sound) and the occipito-temporal cortex, which houses the VWFA (crucial for orthographic processing and rapid word recognition). In conjunction with this left-hemisphere underactivation, individuals with dyslexia often exhibit compensatory hyperactivation in right-hemisphere posterior regions and bilateral frontal regions.34 The VWFA itself demonstrates reduced specialization for print and less efficient processing of familiar words in those with dyslexia.20

A broader view suggests that dyslexia involves difficulties in integrating information across different functional brain systems, often linked to abnormal functioning of hub regions that are responsible for connecting these disparate systems and large-scale Resting State Networks (RSNs).²⁰ Some research has also noted reduced cerebellar responses to mismatching rhythmic stimuli, hinting at potential involvement of the cerebellum in some aspects of dyslexia.⁵³

The consistent pattern of left-hemisphere hypoactivation in core reading areas, juxtaposed with right-hemisphere and/or frontal hyperactivation, points towards a fundamental inefficiency within the typical neural network for reading. This inefficiency appears to necessitate a reliance on less specialized or alternative compensatory neural pathways. Given that the left hemisphere is specialized for language processing in the majority of individuals ⁴⁶, reduced activity in these critical areas during reading tasks ⁵⁰ indicates that the primary neural machinery for fluent reading is not being engaged effectively. The recruitment of other brain areas ³⁴ can be interpreted as the brain’s attempt to cope with this inefficiency. However, these alternative pathways are often slower and less efficient for the demands of fluent reading, which helps to explain the characteristic effortful and dysfluent reading observed in individuals with dyslexia.

Furthermore, the characterization of dyslexia as involving dysfunction in hub regions and impaired integration across multiple brain systems ²⁰ suggests that the disorder is not simply a deficit within specific isolated modules. Instead, it appears to be, at least in part, a problem of network coordination. Fluent reading is a highly complex cognitive skill that demands the seamless integration of visual, auditory, and linguistic information. Effective coordination between brain regions specialized for these distinct tasks is paramount. If the hub regions that are theorized to facilitate this intricate coordination are themselves dysfunctional ²⁰, the entire reading process can become fragmented, slow, and inefficient.

3. Atypical Neural Connectivity

Dyslexia is increasingly conceptualized as a “disconnection syndrome,” reflecting atypical patterns of communication between brain regions.40 Evidence for this comes from studies showing reduced functional connectivity within key left-hemisphere networks, including frontoparietal, temporoparietal, and ventral occipito-temporal (VOT) pathways.40

Structurally, these functional disconnections are often mirrored by white matter abnormalities. Lower fractional anisotropy (FA), an indicator of white matter integrity, is widely reported in several left-hemisphere tracts in individuals with dyslexia. These include the arcuate fasciculus (AF), which connects temporal and frontal language areas; the inferior fronto-occipital fasciculus (IFOF) and the inferior longitudinal fasciculus (ILF), both involved in visual and language processing; and the uncinate fasciculus (UF).²⁰

Functionally, fMRI studies reveal that dyslexic readers exhibit divergent connectivity patterns compared to typical readers. These include altered connectivity within the visual pathway, between visual association areas and prefrontal attention areas, often increased right-hemisphere connectivity, and notably, reduced connectivity involving the VWFA.³⁵ Electroencephalography (EEG) studies also lend support to the idea of altered large-scale functional network organization in dyslexia, for example, by showing more interconnected nodes in the alpha frequency band in adults with dyslexia compared to typical readers.⁵⁴

The widespread findings of white matter connectivity anomalies, such as reduced integrity in the AF, IFOF, and ILF ²⁹, provide a compelling structural basis for the functional disconnections observed in dyslexia. These white matter tracts can be thought of as the brain’s critical information highways. If these pathways—for instance, the arcuate fasciculus, which is vital for the interplay between temporal regions (involved in sound processing) and frontal regions (involved in speech production and higher-order cognitive processing)—are compromised ²⁹, then the rapid and efficient communication necessary for tasks like phonological decoding (sounding out words) is fundamentally disrupted. This directly links observable structural differences in the brain to the functional difficulties experienced in reading.

Moreover, the observation of both under-connectivity and over-connectivity in different neural networks or pathways within the dyslexic brain ³⁵ suggests a complex and nuanced reorganization of brain networks, rather than a simple global reduction in connectivity. This complexity must be taken into account when formulating comprehensive models of dyslexia and when designing targeted interventions. For example, patterns of increased right-hemisphere connectivity ³⁵ might represent a compensatory strategy developed by the brain to bypass inefficient or underdeveloped left-hemisphere pathways. However, this alternative neural routing may not be as optimal or efficient for the specific demands of reading. A key challenge for ongoing and future research is to delineate which of these atypical connectivity patterns are maladaptive, reflecting the core difficulties of dyslexia, and which might be adaptive or compensatory, representing the brain’s attempts to cope with these underlying challenges.

B. Associated Cognitive Deficits: Phonological Processing, Auditory Processing, Working Memory, and Processing Speed

The neurological differences observed in dyslexia are closely linked to a profile of specific cognitive deficits that directly impact reading acquisition and performance.

Phonological Processing: A core and widely recognized cognitive deficit in dyslexia lies in phonological processing.⁸ This refers to the ability to perceive, manipulate, and use the sound structure of language. Difficulties manifest in areas such as phonemic awareness (identifying and manipulating individual sounds in words), phonological decoding (sounding out unfamiliar words), and spelling. These deficits are robustly linked to the hypoactivation observed in left temporo-parietal and inferior frontal brain regions, which are critical for these linguistic sound-based operations.⁸

Auditory Processing: Closely related to phonological deficits are difficulties in more basic auditory processing, particularly concerning speech sounds.⁵⁶ Some individuals with dyslexia exhibit challenges in discriminating subtle differences in speech sounds, such as the timing of amplitude rises in sound, which can impact the clarity of phoneme perception. This has led to the concept of “auditory dyslexia,” which specifically affects the processing and understanding of spoken language, further impacting phonological awareness and phonemic processing.⁵⁷ Neurobiologically, these auditory processing difficulties can be linked to atypical functioning in the superior temporal gyrus (STG), a key area for auditory and speech perception.⁵⁶

Working Memory: Impairments in working memory, especially verbal working memory, are frequently reported in individuals with dyslexia.¹⁹ Working memory is the cognitive system responsible for temporarily holding and manipulating information. In the context of reading, verbal working memory is crucial for holding sequences of sounds in mind during decoding, for retaining parts of a sentence while processing subsequent parts for comprehension, and for manipulating phonological information during spelling. Neural correlates of these working memory deficits in dyslexia include reduced activation in prefrontal and parietal cortices during working memory tasks.⁶³

Processing Speed: Many individuals with dyslexia exhibit slower processing speed, particularly for linguistic stimuli.²⁰ This is often assessed using tasks like Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN), which requires quickly naming sequences of familiar items like letters, numbers, or colors. Slower RAN performance is a strong predictor of reading fluency. This reduced processing speed can be linked neurobiologically to less efficient engagement of visual word processing areas like the VWFA ²⁰, as well as potential inefficiencies in the broader neural networks supporting rapid lexical access and articulation.

Cerebellar Deficit Hypothesis: While the phonological deficit theory is the most dominant, some researchers have proposed a cerebellar deficit hypothesis for dyslexia.⁶⁶ This theory suggests that dysfunction in the cerebellum, a brain region involved in motor control, timing, and the automatization of skills, might contribute to reading difficulties by impairing the fluent and automatic execution of reading processes. Evidence for this hypothesis is mixed, but some studies have reported structural and functional differences in the cerebellum of individuals with dyslexia.⁵³

The phonological deficit in dyslexia is not a singular entity but likely comprises a constellation of related sub-component weaknesses. These can include impaired phonemic awareness, difficulties in the auditory discrimination of specific speech sound features (like amplitude rise time ⁵⁶), and limitations in verbal working memory capacity for holding and manipulating these sounds.⁵⁹ While all these facets are related to the processing of language sounds, they represent distinct cognitive operations that are likely supported by partially dissociable, yet interacting, neural circuits within the broader left hemisphere language network. This nuanced understanding suggests that interventions for dyslexia might achieve greater efficacy by differentially targeting these specific sub-components based on an individual’s precise cognitive profile.

Deficits in processing speed, particularly as measured by RAN tasks ⁹, are thought to reflect the overall efficiency of the entire reading network. This includes the speed and accuracy of connections between visual processing areas (e.g., the VWFA), phonological processing regions, and lexical (word meaning) representations. Slowness in RAN ⁵³ could therefore stem from inefficiencies at any point within this complex chain of operations, or from bottlenecks in the communication between these critical processing nodes. This makes RAN a valuable indicator of the overall efficiency of an individual’s reading system, but it also implies that impairments on this measure could arise from multiple underlying neurocognitive causes, necessitating a comprehensive assessment to pinpoint the primary locus of difficulty.

The cerebellar deficit hypothesis ⁶⁶, while not universally accepted as the primary etiological factor in dyslexia, may offer an explanation for a subset of characteristics observed in some individuals with the disorder, or for commonly co-occurring difficulties such as motor clumsiness or problems with timing. While phonological deficits remain central to the understanding of dyslexia ⁴⁶, the observation that some individuals with dyslexia also exhibit motor coordination issues or timing deficits ⁶⁷ aligns with the known functions of the cerebellum. If a subgroup of individuals with dyslexia indeed presents with cerebellar differences ⁵³, this could account for these additional symptoms and might necessitate different or supplementary intervention approaches compared to those that focus exclusively on phonological remediation. This possibility further supports the view of dyslexia as a heterogeneous condition ⁵³, with potentially varying underlying neurocognitive profiles.

IV. The Neurocognitive Profile of Dyscalculia

Dyscalculia, or mathematical learning disability (MLD), is characterized by persistent difficulties in acquiring and applying mathematical skills, despite adequate intelligence and educational opportunities.⁶⁸ Similar to dyslexia, dyscalculia is understood to have a neurobiological basis, with specific patterns of brain structure, function, and connectivity associated with the disorder.

A. Neurological Basis: Parietal Cortex, Intraparietal Sulcus, and Fronto-Parietal Networks

The parietal lobes, particularly the intraparietal sulcus (IPS), along with fronto-parietal networks, are central to the neurobiological understanding of dyscalculia.

1. Structural Differences

Structural neuroimaging studies have consistently identified differences in brain anatomy in individuals with dyscalculia. A prominent finding is reduced gray matter volume in the parietal cortex, especially within and around the intraparietal sulcus (IPS).24 The supramarginal gyri, also part of the parietal lobe and involved in arithmetic fact retrieval, may also show reduced volume.68 Structural differences are not limited to the parietal lobe; variations have also been reported in frontal regions (such as the inferior frontal gyrus and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) and in the occipito-temporal cortex 68, areas involved in executive functions and visual processing of numbers, respectively. For instance, reduced grey matter in the left IPS has been observed in children born preterm who later exhibit calculation deficits.73

White matter differences have also been noted, although findings are sometimes less consistent than for gray matter. Alterations in tracts like the inferior longitudinal fasciculus (ILF) and the superior longitudinal fasciculus (SLF) have been reported.⁶⁸ These tracts are crucial for fronto-parietal communication and for integrating visual information with numerical processing. However, some research has questioned the reliability and consistency of these white matter correlates across studies ⁷⁴, suggesting a need for further investigation.

The persistence of structural differences in the parietal lobe, particularly the IPS, from childhood through adolescence ⁶⁸ provides strong evidence for a neurodevelopmental origin of dyscalculia. This implicates an early and enduring atypicality in brain regions that are fundamental for core quantity representation, rather than dyscalculia being solely a consequence of inadequate mathematical instruction or experience. The IPS is widely recognized as critical for the “number sense”—the intuitive understanding of numerical quantity and relationships.⁷⁵ If this region consistently shows reduced gray matter volume across development in individuals with dyscalculia, it points to a foundational structural difference affecting the very neural substrate of numerical understanding. This aligns with and supports the “number sense deficit” hypothesis of dyscalculia.

Furthermore, reported differences in white matter tracts, such as the SLF which connects frontal and parietal areas ⁶⁸, offer a structural basis for understanding impaired communication within the broader fronto-parietal network. This network is essential for more complex mathematical tasks that require the integration of quantity processing (parietal) with executive functions like working memory, strategic planning, and attention (frontal).⁷⁷ Compromised white matter pathways connecting these regions would logically impair these integrated functions, leading to difficulties in mathematical problem-solving and procedural learning. The ongoing debate regarding the consistency of these white matter findings ⁷⁴ indicates that more research is needed to clarify the specific tracts involved and the reliability of these associations, possibly reflecting heterogeneity within the dyscalculic population or methodological variations across studies.

2. Functional Differences

Functionally, individuals with dyscalculia often exhibit aberrant activation patterns within the distributed neural network responsible for numerical cognition, which includes parietal, prefrontal, occipito-temporal, and even hippocampal areas.40 A key finding is reduced activity in the right intraparietal sulcus (IPS) during tasks involving non-symbolic magnitude processing (e.g., comparing sets of dots).40 The IPS is a major site of activation during numerical processing, with a general tendency for the right IPS to be more involved in non-symbolic quantity tasks and the left IPS to be more engaged during symbolic numerical tasks (e.g., processing Arabic numerals).75

Interestingly, some studies also report hyper-connectivity involving the IPS in individuals with dyscalculia ⁷⁷, or that children with dyscalculia may show increased overall brain activity in certain areas when processing numerical information, suggesting their brains have to “work harder” to perform these tasks.¹¹ Another notable functional difference involves the hippocampus, which has been found to show hyperactivity during symbolic number perception in individuals with dyscalculia. This may reflect an increased reliance on effortful, memory-based compensatory strategies rather than intuitive numerical processing.⁷²

The observed patterns of IPS dysfunction—often characterized by hypoactivation during core numerical tasks but sometimes by hyper-connectivity—suggest that the fundamental quantity processing system is not operating typically in dyscalculia. Hypoactivation may indicate an inability to effectively engage this critical system for understanding quantity.⁴⁰ Conversely, findings of hyper-connectivity ⁷⁷ could reflect inefficient neural processing, perhaps due to noisy signals within the network, or an attempt to compensate by drawing on excessive resources from other brain areas. This dual pattern of findings underscores the complexity of IPS involvement in dyscalculia and may point to different underlying profiles within the disorder.

The finding of increased hippocampal activation, particularly during symbolic tasks, in individuals with dyscalculia ⁸⁰ is particularly intriguing. The hippocampus plays a crucial role in memory formation and retrieval.⁷² If individuals with dyscalculia struggle with an intuitive grasp of number sense (a primarily parietal function) or have difficulty readily accessing numerical meaning from symbols, they might resort to more effortful, rote memorization of mathematical facts or procedures. This compensatory strategy would naturally lead to greater engagement of hippocampal memory systems. While such strategies can allow for some task completion, they are generally less flexible, more prone to error, and less efficient than a deep, conceptual understanding of mathematics.

3. Atypical Neural Connectivity (Fronto-Parietal Networks)

Dyscalculia is increasingly linked to atypical development and functioning of the fronto-parietal brain network, with evidence suggesting these differences can be detected even in early childhood.78 This network is critical for integrating basic numerical representations processed in parietal areas with higher-order cognitive control processes subserved by frontal regions. Altered connectivity between the IPS and the prefrontal cortex (PFC) is a key feature.52

Studies have reported a mixed picture regarding connectivity: some find evidence of hyper-connectivity within the fronto-parietal network in individuals with dyscalculia (e.g., between the left and right IPS, or between the IPS and frontal regions).⁷⁷ In contrast, other studies point to reduced structural connectivity, for example, in the superior longitudinal fasciculus (SLF), a major white matter tract linking frontal and parietal lobes.⁷⁴ As mentioned earlier, white matter differences in both the SLF and ILF are thought to impair fronto-parietal communication and the visual processing of numerical problems.⁶⁸

The consistent implication of disrupted fronto-parietal connectivity highlights a core neurobiological feature of dyscalculia. This disruption impacts the crucial integration of core numerical representation, primarily handled by parietal regions, with essential executive functions such as working memory, planning, and attention, which are largely subserved by frontal regions. Both sets of functions are indispensable for successful mathematical problem-solving. The fronto-parietal network is recognized as vital for mathematical skills ⁷⁷, where the parietal component deals with quantity and magnitude, and the frontal component manages strategic approaches, working memory load, and error monitoring. If the “communication lines”—the white matter tracts like the SLF ⁶⁸—between these areas are inefficient, or if their functional coordination (reflected in connectivity patterns ⁷⁷) is atypical, then the ability to perform complex mathematical tasks that necessitate both robust quantity understanding and strategic cognitive control will inevitably be compromised.

The co-existence of research findings reporting both hyper-connectivity and hypo-connectivity within this critical fronto-parietal network ⁷⁴ suggests that dyscalculia may involve more than a simple lack of connection. Instead, it may reflect a broader dysregulation of network communication. These differing connectivity patterns could potentially reflect different underlying subtypes of dyscalculia or varied compensatory efforts by the brain. For instance, hyperconnectivity might indicate an over-reliance on certain neural pathways or an inefficient, “noisy” system that requires excessive signaling. Hypoconnectivity, on the other hand, could represent a more straightforward breakdown in communication capacity. Teasing apart these complex patterns and linking them to specific cognitive profiles within the dyscalculia spectrum remains an important area for future research.

B. Associated Cognitive Deficits: Numerical Cognition, Quantity Processing, Visual Processing of Symbols, and Visuospatial Working Memory

The neurological variations in dyscalculia translate into a range of cognitive deficits that underpin mathematical difficulties.

Numerical Cognition/Number Sense: A primary deficit often lies in core numerical abilities, particularly the intuitive understanding and processing of quantities (often referred to as “number sense”).¹⁰ This includes difficulties with both the Approximate Number System (ANS), used for estimating larger quantities, and the Object Tracking System (OTS) or subitizing, used for rapidly and accurately perceiving small numbers of items. These deficits are closely linked to the aforementioned dysfunction in the intraparietal sulcus (IPS).²⁴

Access Deficit: Beyond problems with quantity itself, many individuals with dyscalculia struggle with the “access deficit”—difficulty in fluently and automatically connecting numerical symbols (e.g., Arabic numerals like “7” or number words like “seven”) to their corresponding quantity representations.⁴⁰ They may understand “sevenness” at a non-symbolic level but fail to readily link it to the symbol.

Visual Processing of Numerical Symbols: Difficulties can also manifest in the visual processing of numerical symbols, such as recognizing numbers, interpreting mathematical operation signs (+, -, ×, ÷), and understanding visual representations of data like graphs and charts.⁸³ The fusiform gyrus in the ventral occipito-temporal cortex, sometimes referred to as the “number form area,” is implicated in processing the visual form of numerals and is often found to be atypical in dyscalculia.¹⁰

Visuospatial Working Memory: Deficits in visuospatial working memory are considered a specific and significant source of vulnerability in dyscalculia.⁴⁰ This impacts the ability to mentally hold and manipulate numerical and spatial information, which is critical for tasks like mental arithmetic, aligning numbers in multi-digit calculations, and understanding geometric concepts. Even in cases of comorbid reading and math disability, visuospatial working memory deficits are particularly associated with the math difficulties.⁸⁶

Arithmetic Fact Retrieval: A common and persistent problem is difficulty memorizing and rapidly retrieving basic arithmetic facts (e.g., 3+4=7, 6×7=42).⁶⁸ This is thought to be linked to dysfunction in parietal areas like the supramarginal gyrus, as well as atypical hippocampal involvement, suggesting issues with both the initial learning and long-term consolidation of these facts.⁶⁸

Procedural Difficulties: Individuals with dyscalculia often have problems learning, remembering, and correctly applying mathematical procedures and algorithms for calculations (e.g., steps for long division or solving equations).⁷³

The distinction between a “number sense deficit,” characterized by impaired core quantity representation and linked primarily to IPS dysfunction, and an “access deficit,” marked by impaired linking of symbols to quantity and potentially involving VOT/fusiform gyrus and parietal-temporal connections, suggests at least two major cognitive pathways that can lead to dyscalculia.⁷⁷ These distinct pathways would likely have different primary neurobiological underpinnings and would necessitate different intervention approaches. For instance, an individual primarily struggling with the fundamental concept of “how many” (a number sense deficit) would require interventions focused on building foundational quantity understanding, perhaps using non-symbolic representations. In contrast, an individual who understands quantity but fails to connect it efficiently to the symbol “5” (an access deficit) would benefit more from strategies aimed at strengthening symbol-quantity mapping and automaticity.

Visuospatial working memory deficits are particularly prominent in dyscalculia and are thought to interact significantly with parietal lobe dysfunction.⁸⁵ The intraparietal sulcus is known to be involved in both spatial processing and numerical representation.⁷⁶ This suggests a shared neural system whose impairment can lead to difficulties in both domains, critically impacting a wide range of mathematical skills, from the proper alignment of digits in multi-digit calculations to the understanding of geometric concepts and the interpretation of graphs. Many mathematical concepts are inherently spatial (e.g., the mental number line, geometric figures, graphical data representations). Visuospatial working memory is essential for mentally holding, rotating, and manipulating these spatial representations.⁸⁵ Therefore, a deficit in visuospatial working memory, potentially stemming from or exacerbated by IPS dysfunction, would directly hinder the ability to learn and perform numerous mathematical tasks effectively.

Difficulties with the retrieval of arithmetic facts ⁷³ are a frequent and frustrating symptom of dyscalculia. These difficulties may represent a downstream consequence of several potential underlying issues. If an individual has a poor fundamental number sense, mathematical facts like “3+4=7” may seem arbitrary and meaningless, akin to memorizing nonsense syllables, making them difficult to learn and retain. If there is an access deficit, preventing a strong and automatic association between the problem (e.g., “3+4”) and its answer (“7”), retrieval will be slow and effortful. Furthermore, limitations in working memory capacity ⁸⁵ can hinder the initial encoding, rehearsal, and consolidation processes necessary to commit these facts to long-term memory in the first place. This suggests that problems with arithmetic fact retrieval are often a symptom with multiple potential underlying neurocognitive causes, requiring careful assessment to determine the primary source of the difficulty.

Table 2 provides a comparative overview of the neurocognitive profiles of dyslexia and dyscalculia.

Table 2: Comparative Neurocognitive Profiles of Dyslexia and Dyscalculia

Feature	Dyslexia	Dyscalculia
Key Brain Regions Implicated (Structure & Function)	Left hemisphere language networks (temporo-parietal, inferior frontal, occipito-temporal including VWFA) 20; Cerebellum (some theories) 53	Parietal cortex (especially Intraparietal Sulcus – IPS, supramarginal gyrus) 68; Fronto-parietal networks 77; Occipito-temporal cortex (fusiform gyrus/number form area) 10; Hippocampus 72
Patterns of Brain Activity	Hypoactivation in left hemisphere reading networks; often compensatory hyperactivation in right hemisphere/frontal areas 8	Often hypoactivation in parietal regions (e.g., right IPS) during numerical tasks; sometimes hyperactivation/hyperconnectivity in numerical or compensatory networks 40
Key White Matter Tracts Implicated	Arcuate Fasciculus (AF), Inferior Fronto-Occipital Fasciculus (IFOF), Inferior Longitudinal Fasciculus (ILF), Uncinate Fasciculus (UF) – often reduced integrity in left hemisphere 20	Superior Longitudinal Fasciculus (SLF), Inferior Longitudinal Fasciculus (ILF) – involved in fronto-parietal and visual-numerical integration 68
Primary Cognitive Deficits	Phonological processing (phonemic awareness, decoding), auditory processing of speech sounds, verbal working memory, rapid automatized naming (RAN) / processing speed for linguistic stimuli 20	Numerical cognition (number sense, quantity processing), access to numerical meaning from symbols, visual processing of numerical symbols, visuospatial working memory, arithmetic fact retrieval 10

Sources: ²⁰

V. The Critical Role of Core Cognitive Processes in Learning Disabilities

Beyond the specific difficulties in reading, writing, or mathematics that define particular learning disabilities, a range of core cognitive processes are frequently implicated across the spectrum of LDs. These processes, including working memory, processing speed, attentional control, and executive functions, are foundational for most types of learning. Deficits in these areas can significantly contribute to, and exacerbate, the primary learning challenges.

A. Working Memory (WM): The Engine for Learning and Its Deficits in LDs

Working memory (WM) is a cognitive system of limited capacity responsible for the temporary storage and manipulation of information necessary for complex cognitive tasks such as language comprehension, learning, and reasoning.³⁶ It allows individuals to hold information in an accessible state for brief periods (seconds to minutes) to guide goal-directed behavior.³⁶ Given its central role, it is not surprising that WM deficits are highly prevalent in individuals with various learning disabilities, including dyslexia and dyscalculia, as well as in conditions like ADHD which often co-occur with LDs.¹⁹

In dyslexia, impairments are particularly noted in verbal working memory.⁵⁸ This component of WM is crucial for holding phonological information (speech sounds) during tasks like decoding unfamiliar words (where individual sounds must be held and blended), comprehending sentences (where earlier parts of a sentence must be retained to understand the whole), and spelling (where sound sequences must be actively maintained and manipulated). Individuals with dyslexia often show alterations in their ability to handle verbal information within WM.⁵⁹

In dyscalculia, WM deficits also play a significant role, with a particular emphasis on visuospatial working memory.⁴⁰ This system is responsible for storing and manipulating visual and spatial information. Deficits in visuospatial WM can contribute to weaknesses in representing numerical quantities (e.g., on a mental number line), understanding spatial relationships between numbers, aligning digits in multi-column arithmetic, and manipulating information during mathematical problem-solving.

The neurocognitive basis of WM involves dynamic interactions between frontal and posterior cortical areas, prominently the fronto-parietal network, as well as subcortical structures.³⁶ WM deficits observed in learning disabilities are often linked to atypical activation patterns within these critical networks.⁶³ For example, neuroimaging studies have shown that individuals with dyslexia may exhibit reduced activation in regions such as the left superior parietal lobule and the right inferior prefrontal gyrus during tasks that tax working memory.⁶³

It is important to recognize that WM is not a monolithic entity; prominent models like Baddeley’s multicomponent model ⁶⁰ describe distinct components, including the phonological loop (for verbal information), the visuospatial sketchpad (for visual and spatial information), and the central executive (for attentional control and coordination). These components can be differentially affected in various learning disabilities, leading to specific patterns of learning difficulty. The strong association of verbal WM deficits with dyslexia and visuospatial WM deficits with dyscalculia serves as a clear example of this principle.⁵⁹ Therefore, a general label of “WM deficit” is often insufficient for diagnostic or intervention purposes; a more precise profiling of the specific WM components affected is necessary for a deeper understanding and more targeted support.

Furthermore, the relationship between WM deficits and learning disabilities is likely bidirectional. On one hand, underlying neurobiological differences in the development or functioning of fronto-parietal networks critical for WM ³⁶ may inherently limit an individual’s WM capacity. On the other hand, the persistent and effortful struggles associated with academic tasks due to primary deficits (e.g., the intense effort required for phonological decoding in dyslexia) can significantly overload available WM resources.⁵⁸ This creates a situation where the primary learning difficulty consumes a disproportionate amount of WM capacity, leaving insufficient resources for higher-level comprehension or problem-solving. This can establish a detrimental cycle where inherent WM limitations exacerbate learning difficulties, and the cognitive load imposed by those learning difficulties further strains and functionally impairs the WM system.

B. Processing Speed: Impact on Information Uptake and Fluency

Processing speed refers to the rate at which an individual can perceive, interpret, and respond to incoming information, whether it is visual, auditory, or motor.⁸⁹ It is a fundamental cognitive efficiency that underpins performance on a wide array of tasks. Slow processing speed is a common characteristic found in individuals with various learning disabilities, including dyslexia and dyscalculia, and is also frequently associated with ADHD.¹⁹ Importantly, processing speed is generally considered to be independent of overall intelligence; individuals with slow processing speed can be highly intelligent but may take longer to complete tasks.⁸⁹

Reduced processing speed can significantly impact academic performance by affecting reading fluency and comprehension, the speed of mathematical problem-solving, the ability to follow multi-step directions efficiently, and the capacity to take notes effectively during lectures.⁸⁹ In dyslexia, slow processing speed often manifests as slow, choppy oral reading and difficulties with tasks requiring rapid naming of linguistic stimuli (e.g., Rapid Automatized Naming – RAN).⁵³ In dyscalculia, it can contribute to difficulties with math fluency, slow completion of calculations, and problems finishing math tests within time limits.⁸⁷

The neurocognitive basis of processing speed is thought to involve several factors, including the efficiency of neural transmission. This may relate to the thickness and integrity of myelin (the fatty sheath that insulates nerve fibers and speeds up signal transmission), the efficiency of neurotransmitter systems, or the overall organization and efficiency of neural networks, particularly those involving the frontal lobes.⁸⁹ In the context of dyslexia, slower processing speed for words may be linked to less efficient engagement of specialized visual word processing areas like the VWFA.²⁰

Processing speed deficits often act as a significant transdiagnostic factor in learning disabilities. They can function as a bottleneck, impeding performance across various academic domains even when an individual possesses adequate conceptual understanding of the material. This highlights the critical importance of considering the impact of time constraints in assessments; poor performance on a timed academic test might reflect slow processing speed rather than a fundamental lack of knowledge or understanding.⁸⁷ This distinction is crucial for accurate diagnosis and for determining appropriate accommodations, such as extended time on tests and assignments.

The potential neural underpinnings of slow processing speed—such as variations in myelination, neurotransmitter function, or the large-scale organization of neural networks ⁸⁹—are quite fundamental to overall brain efficiency. Compromises in these basic neural mechanisms could have widespread effects on cognitive tempo, impacting not just one specific academic skill but the overall speed and efficiency of information processing across multiple domains. While direct interventions to alter factors like myelination are complex and largely experimental, understanding this link encourages research into broader factors that support healthy brain development and optimal neural communication, which could, in turn, have positive downstream effects on processing speed.

C. Attentional Control: Sustaining Focus and Managing Distractions

Attentional control refers to the set of cognitive processes that allow an individual to selectively attend to relevant information while ignoring distractions, to sustain focus over time, and to flexibly shift attention between tasks or stimuli as needed.⁹³ These abilities are crucial for effective learning and are largely dependent on the maturation and functioning of frontal lobe systems.⁹³ Difficulties with attentional control are a hallmark of ADHD but are also frequently observed in individuals with other neurodevelopmental conditions, including autism, anxiety disorders, and various learning disabilities.⁹³

In dyslexia, a range of attentional deficits have been reported, including problems with alertness (readiness to respond), covert shifts of attention (shifting attention without moving the eyes), divided attention (attending to multiple stimuli simultaneously), cognitive flexibility (shifting between different rules or tasks), and visual search efficiency.⁵⁵ Some theories of dyslexia have specifically proposed that sluggish attention shifting or a limited visual attention span might be core cognitive deficits contributing to reading difficulties, independent of or in addition to phonological problems.⁵⁵

In dyscalculia, deficits have been noted in the executive function and alertness networks of attention, with individuals sometimes experiencing difficulty in efficiently recruiting attentional resources for mathematical tasks.⁷³

The neurocognitive basis of attention involves a complex interplay of several distinct but interacting attentional networks. These include an alerting network (often associated with right frontal and parietal areas, and the locus coeruleus, maintaining readiness), an orienting network (primarily involving parietal lobes, for directing attention to sensory stimuli), and an executive control network (heavily reliant on the prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex, for resolving conflict and managing goal-directed attention).⁹⁶ Anxiety, which is often comorbid with LDs, can significantly impair attentional control by adversely affecting the functioning of these networks.⁹⁶

It is important to understand that attentional control deficits in learning disabilities are typically not about a general state of “inattentiveness.” Rather, they often involve specific weaknesses in one or more components of the complex attention system (e.g., difficulty shifting attention efficiently, problems dividing attention between simultaneous inputs, or challenges in sustaining attention over prolonged periods). These specific attentional deficits can then interact deleteriously with the primary cognitive challenges associated with a particular LD. For example, an individual with dyslexia who already finds decoding to be an effortful and slow process may find it exceptionally difficult to sustain the necessary focused attention throughout a reading passage, leading to more errors and poorer comprehension. Similarly, a child with dyscalculia might struggle to maintain alertness and focused attention during a lengthy or complex mathematical problem, thereby compromising their ability to follow procedures correctly or to monitor their work for errors.

The high rate of comorbidity between anxiety disorders and learning disabilities ⁹⁴, coupled with the known impact of anxiety on attentional control mechanisms ⁹⁶, suggests the potential for a detrimental feedback loop. The academic difficulties and frustrations inherent in LDs can understandably lead to increased anxiety. This anxiety, in turn, can further impair the efficiency of attentional control systems, particularly the executive functions of inhibition and shifting.⁹⁶ This creates a cycle where the emotional consequences of the learning disability can worsen the very cognitive processes that are essential for successful learning, thereby exacerbating the original academic problems.

D. Executive Functions (EF): Planning, Organization, and Self-Regulation

Executive functions (EFs) are a set of higher-order, top-down cognitive processes that enable goal-directed behavior and self-regulation.⁶² Key EFs include planning, organization, initiation of tasks, inhibition of inappropriate responses or distractions, working memory (often considered an EF itself or closely allied), cognitive flexibility (shifting between different tasks, rules, or mental sets), and emotional regulation. These skills are critical for academic success, social interaction, and managing daily life demands. EF deficits are commonly observed in individuals with learning disabilities and ADHD, significantly impacting their academic progress, adaptive functioning, and overall well-being.⁶²

In dyslexia, individuals often experience difficulties with EFs such as planning and organizing written work, managing time effectively for assignments, maintaining and manipulating information in working memory during reading comprehension, and regulating attention and effort during demanding literacy tasks.⁶¹ Some research suggests that EF impairments may even precede the formal diagnosis of reading disability, indicating a potential early vulnerability.⁶²

In dyscalculia, deficits in executive functions, particularly those operating within a numerical context, are strongly related to the disorder.⁸⁸ Mathematical problem-solving relies heavily on EFs for planning solution steps, organizing information, holding intermediate results in working memory, inhibiting irrelevant information, and flexibly shifting between different calculation strategies. Frontal brain regions, which are primarily associated with EFs, provide critical support for these mathematical tasks.⁶⁹

The neurocognitive basis of executive functions is primarily associated with the prefrontal cortex (PFC) and its extensive connections with other cortical (e.g., parietal) and subcortical brain regions [¹⁰⁰ (PFC development), ³⁸]. Different components of EF, such as working memory and inhibition, have distinct yet overlapping neural correlates within these networks.¹⁰² The development of the PFC and associated EFs is protracted, continuing throughout adolescence and into early adulthood.⁶²

The influence of executive function deficits in learning disabilities appears to be bidirectional. On one hand, pre-existing weaknesses in EFs (e.g., poor organizational skills or limited working memory capacity) can directly contribute to the development of learning difficulties by hindering the ability to learn complex academic procedures, manage information effectively, or sustain effort on challenging tasks. On the other hand, the persistent frustration, failure, and cognitive load associated with having an LD can themselves tax and impair executive functions, particularly those related to self-regulation, emotional control, and persistence.¹⁰⁴ This creates a scenario where EF deficits can be both a contributing cause and an exacerbating factor for learning disabilities, making EFs a critical target for assessment and intervention.

The prolonged developmental trajectory of the prefrontal cortex and executive functions, extending well into adolescence and early adulthood ⁶², has important implications. EF-related challenges in individuals with learning disabilities may become more apparent or problematic as academic and life demands increase in complexity and require greater independence. An individual with an LD who managed reasonably well in the more structured environment of elementary school with external supports might begin to struggle significantly in middle school, high school, or college, where demands on independent planning, organization, time management, and self-monitoring (all core EFs) escalate dramatically.¹⁰⁰ This highlights the potential need for ongoing EF support and strategy instruction throughout an individual’s educational journey and even into adulthood.

E. Interplay and Overlap: How These Cognitive Deficits Co-occur and Contribute to LDs

Deficits in working memory, processing speed, attentional control, and executive functions do not typically occur in isolation in individuals with learning disabilities. Instead, they often co-occur and interact, creating a complex cognitive profile that contributes to learning challenges.¹⁹ This pattern of co-occurring domain-general cognitive deficits is thought to be a key factor explaining the high rates of comorbidity observed between different types of learning disabilities (e.g., the co-occurrence of dyslexia and dyscalculia) and between LDs and other neurodevelopmental conditions such as ADHD.¹⁹ For instance, research has shown that individuals with comorbid reading and math disabilities (RD+MD) tend to exhibit poorer performance on measures of working memory and processing speed compared to those with RD only.⁸⁶

The frequent co-occurrence of these core cognitive deficits suggests that they may represent a “general vulnerability factor” for a range of neurodevelopmental disorders. Weaknesses in these foundational cognitive abilities could disrupt multiple avenues of academic and adaptive skill development. The specific manifestation of a learning disability—for example, whether an individual primarily struggles with reading (dyslexia) or mathematics (dyscalculia)—might then be influenced by other, more domain-specific factors. These could include the relative integrity of specialized neural networks (e.g., language processing networks versus numerical processing networks), specific genetic predispositions, or the particular combination and severity of the underlying general cognitive weaknesses.

Furthermore, the interplay between these cognitive deficits is likely to be multiplicative rather than simply additive in its impact on learning. For example, slow processing speed can place an additional strain on already limited working memory capacity. If information is processed too slowly, it may decay from the working memory store before it can be fully encoded, manipulated, or integrated with other information. This interaction can make complex tasks, which rely on both efficient processing and adequate working memory, exponentially more difficult. Consider a student with both slow processing speed and weak working memory attempting to read a complex sentence: their slow decoding speed means that the phonological information corresponding to the beginning of the sentence may fade from their working memory before they reach the end, significantly impairing their ability to integrate the meaning of the entire sentence. This highlights the need for comprehensive cognitive assessments that can identify these interacting deficits and for interventions that consider their combined impact.

Table 3 summarizes the role of these core cognitive processes in learning and their common manifestations in learning disabilities.

Table 3: Core Cognitive Processes and Their Manifestation in Learning Disabilities

Cognitive Process	Typical Role in Learning	Common Deficits in LDs	Illustrative Neural Correlates
Working Memory (WM)	Holding and manipulating information for comprehension, problem-solving, following instructions, reasoning.	Difficulty retaining multi-step directions, mental arithmetic, comprehending complex text, organizing thoughts for writing. Verbal WM often impaired in dyslexia; Visuospatial WM often impaired in dyscalculia. 58	Fronto-parietal networks, prefrontal cortex, superior parietal lobule, inferior prefrontal gyrus. 36
Processing Speed	Rate of information uptake, task completion fluency, automaticity of basic skills.	Slow reading, slow calculation, difficulty keeping up with instruction, lengthy task completion times, poor performance on timed tasks. 87	Myelin integrity, neurotransmitter efficiency, organization of neural networks (e.g., frontal lobe networks), efficiency of visual word processing areas. 20
Attentional Control	Sustaining focus, filtering distractions, shifting attention flexibly, monitoring performance.	Difficulty maintaining focus on academic tasks, easily distracted, problems shifting between different types of problems or instructions, poor visual search. 55	Alerting network (right frontal/parietal), orienting network (parietal lobe), executive control network (prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex). 96
Executive Functions (EF) (e.g., planning, organization, inhibition, flexibility, self-regulation)	Organizing tasks and materials, planning approaches to problems, inhibiting impulsive responses, adapting to new rules, managing time, monitoring progress.	Poor organization of assignments and materials, difficulty planning multi-step tasks, impulsivity, trouble starting tasks, poor time management, difficulty regulating frustration. 61	Prefrontal cortex (PFC) and its connections to parietal and other cortical/subcortical regions. 38

Sources: ¹⁹

VI. Understanding Root Causes Through Neurocognitive Profiles

A central aim of research into learning disabilities is to move beyond descriptive accounts of academic struggles towards an understanding of their fundamental origins. Neurocognitive profiling, which involves the integrated assessment of brain structure and function alongside specific cognitive abilities, is pivotal in this endeavor. This approach allows for the linking of observable learning difficulties to underlying variations in neural systems and cognitive processes, thereby illuminating the root causes of these conditions.

A. Linking Neurological Variations to Specific Cognitive Impairments

The clinical neuropsychological approach, grounded in neurocognitive models, operates on the premise of a strong and direct relationship between various learning deficits and the functioning of the brain.¹³ This framework enables researchers and clinicians to trace the pathway from neurological variations to specific cognitive impairments, and ultimately to the manifest learning difficulties.

In dyslexia, for example, dysfunction within the left hemisphere language network—particularly in temporo-parietal and occipito-temporal regions—is robustly linked to core deficits in phonological processing.²⁰ Abnormalities in the Visual Word Form Area (VWFA), a specialized region within the occipito-temporal cortex, are associated with difficulties in orthographic processing (the recognition of letter patterns and whole words).⁴⁸ Furthermore, compromised integrity of white matter tracts like the arcuate fasciculus, which connects key language areas, is linked to impairments in phonological decoding and reading fluency.²⁹

Similarly, in dyscalculia, dysfunction within the parietal lobes, especially the intraparietal sulcus (IPS), is consistently associated with an impaired number sense and difficulties in processing numerical quantity.²⁴ Atypicalities within the broader fronto-parietal network are linked to challenges in integrating basic numerical representations with higher-order executive functions, such as working memory and strategic planning, which are essential for mathematical problem-solving.⁷⁷

More broadly, deficits in domain-general cognitive processes like executive functions, working memory, and attention are increasingly understood in terms of atypical structure or function within large-scale brain networks, predominantly involving prefrontal and fronto-parietal systems.³⁶

The capacity to link specific cognitive deficits (e.g., poor phonological awareness) to particular neural signatures (e.g., reduced activation in the left temporo-parietal cortex during phonological tasks) provides convergent evidence for the root causes of a learning disability. This strengthens diagnostic validity, moving it beyond reliance on purely behavioral observations or academic performance measures alone.¹³ For instance, if a behavioral assessment reveals that a child struggles significantly with tasks requiring rhyming or sound blending (indicative of a phonological processing deficit), and neuroimaging subsequently shows corresponding hypoactivation in Wernicke’s area or the supramarginal gyrus, this combination of evidence offers a more complete and neurobiologically grounded explanation for why that child is experiencing reading difficulties.

This detailed understanding of brain-behavior relationships allows for the formulation of more precise hypotheses about how specific neurological variations lead to observable learning difficulties. The field can thus progress from merely correlating brain measures with behavioral outcomes to exploring the causal mechanisms underlying these associations. For example, if research consistently finds reduced fractional anisotropy (a measure of white matter integrity) in the arcuate fasciculus in individuals with dyslexia ²⁹, scientists can hypothesize that this specific alteration in white matter directly impedes the efficient and rapid transfer of phonological information between temporal language areas (involved in sound processing) and frontal language areas (involved in articulation and higher-level processing). This impaired neural communication, in turn, would lead to the characteristic difficulties in phonological decoding observed in dyslexia. Such a level of specificity in understanding the causal chain from brain to behavior is crucial for refining neurocognitive models of learning disabilities and for developing interventions that target these identified mechanisms.

B. Differentiating and Understanding Comorbid Learning Disabilities

Neurocognitive profiles are also invaluable for differentiating learning disabilities from other conditions that might present with similar academic struggles, such as difficulties arising from second language acquisition or primary emotional and behavioral disorders.¹⁴ Furthermore, they play a crucial role in understanding the common phenomenon of comorbidity, where an individual presents with more than one learning disability (e.g., both dyslexia and dyscalculia) or with an LD co-occurring with another neurodevelopmental disorder, such as ADHD.⁶

The high rates of comorbidity are often attributed to shared underlying cognitive deficits (e.g., in working memory, processing speed, or executive functions) and potentially shared neural substrates, such as vulnerabilities within fronto-parietal networks.¹⁹ Neuroimaging techniques can be particularly helpful in these complex cases by revealing both distinct neural patterns associated with each specific disorder and overlapping patterns that might point to shared neurobiological vulnerabilities.²⁴

The application of neurocognitive profiling can therefore help to disentangle the relative contributions of different underlying deficits in individuals with comorbid presentations. For example, a child diagnosed with both dyslexia and ADHD might exhibit a neurocognitive profile that includes atypicalities in left-hemisphere language networks (consistent with dyslexia) as well as differences in fronto-striatal network structure or function (often associated with ADHD). A comprehensive neurocognitive assessment ¹³ that examines both domain-specific skills (like phonological processing) and domain-general functions (like attentional control or working memory), along with their neural correlates where feasible, can identify the distinct and shared markers associated with each disorder. This allows for a more nuanced and accurate understanding of the child’s overall learning and behavioral profile, rather than attributing all difficulties to a single, overarching cause or failing to recognize the interplay of multiple contributing factors.

Moreover, the identification of shared neurocognitive vulnerabilities in comorbid conditions—for instance, executive function deficits that are common to both dyslexia and ADHD ⁶²—can inform the development of more integrated and potentially more efficient intervention strategies. If multiple diagnosed conditions share common underlying weaknesses, such as impairments in working memory capacity supported by fronto-parietal networks ¹⁹, then an intervention specifically designed to target and improve that shared cognitive process could yield broader benefits, positively impacting symptoms associated with all co-occurring conditions. This approach is more efficient and holistic than attempting to treat each diagnosed “disorder” as an entirely separate entity, particularly if they stem from common neurocognitive roots. Such an understanding encourages a transdiagnostic approach to intervention, focusing on strengthening core cognitive capacities that underpin a range of academic and behavioral skills.

VII. Implications of Neurocognitive Research for Diagnosis and Intervention

The growing understanding of the neurocognitive underpinnings of learning disabilities carries significant implications for both how these conditions are diagnosed and how interventions are designed and implemented. Research in this area is paving the way for more accurate, earlier, and targeted approaches.

A. Enhancing Diagnostic Accuracy with Neurocognitive Markers

Traditionally, the diagnosis of learning disabilities has relied heavily on behavioral observations, academic performance measures, and psychometric testing, often identifying difficulties only after a child has experienced significant academic failure. Neurocognitive research offers the potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy and enable earlier identification through the use of neurobiological and cognitive markers.

Neuroimaging techniques such as MRI and fMRI can identify structural and functional brain abnormalities associated with LDs, some of which may serve as early biomarkers, potentially even before reading or math instruction begins.²⁴ For example, atypical brain activity patterns during phonological tasks in pre-readers have been linked to a later diagnosis of dyslexia.⁸ Studies have suggested that such neural measures can sometimes outperform purely behavioral measures in predicting future learning outcomes and response to intervention.¹⁰⁷

Neuropsychological assessments, which are explicitly based on neurocognitive models, are crucial for describing and interpreting learning disabilities by directly linking observed learning deficits to underlying brain function and cognitive processes.¹³ These assessments evaluate a wide range of cognitive abilities, including comprehension, attention, executive functions, and working memory, which are vital for identifying specific learning gaps and understanding an individual’s unique cognitive profile.¹⁴

The prospect of using neurocognitive markers—such as specific patterns of brain activation or connectivity during relevant tasks, or performance profiles on targeted cognitive tests—to identify at-risk individuals before they experience overt academic failure represents a potential paradigm shift in the field. This moves towards a model of preventative diagnosis and proactive early intervention, rather than the traditional approach of waiting for a child to struggle significantly before support is provided.⁸ Early identification allows for the implementation of timely interventions, which are generally more effective in mitigating the long-term impact of learning disabilities and preventing the cascade of negative academic, emotional, and social consequences.

However, while the potential of neuroimaging for individual diagnosis is promising, its widespread clinical utility is still under development. Significant challenges remain, including the high cost and limited accessibility of advanced neuroimaging techniques, and the critical need to establish robust, reliable predictive power at the individual level, rather than relying on group-level differences often reported in research studies.¹⁰⁷ Most current neuroimaging research excels at identifying average differences between groups of individuals (e.g., those with dyslexia versus typical readers). Translating these group-level findings into a diagnostic tool that can reliably and accurately classify an individual child is a substantial scientific and technical leap. Issues of standardization of imaging protocols, the development of comprehensive normative data for diverse populations, and ensuring cost-effectiveness ¹⁰⁷ must be addressed before neuroimaging can become a routine diagnostic tool in most clinical or school settings. Currently, comprehensive neuropsychological testing, which assesses a range of cognitive functions linked to brain systems, offers a more accessible and established method for evaluating an individual’s neurocognitive profile.

B. Developing Targeted, Neuroplasticity-Based Interventions

A profound implication of understanding the neurobiological basis of learning disabilities is the potential to develop interventions that are not only targeted to specific underlying deficits but also leverage the brain’s inherent capacity for change—neuroplasticity.

Knowledge of the specific neurocognitive weaknesses associated with different LDs informs the design of interventions that directly address these core issues. For example, interventions for dyslexia often focus on intensive phonological awareness and phonics training, targeting the primary linguistic deficits linked to left-hemisphere language network dysfunction.²¹ Similarly, interventions for dyscalculia may emphasize training in number sense, quantity representation, and mathematical reasoning, aiming to strengthen functions associated with parietal and fronto-parietal networks.⁸²

The principle of neuroplasticity—the brain’s ability to reorganize its structure and function in response to experience—is central to this approach.²² Research has demonstrated that evidence-based interventions can lead to measurable positive changes in brain structure and function in individuals with learning disabilities. For instance, effective reading interventions have been shown to normalize some patterns of brain activity and strengthen connectivity in neural networks supporting reading in individuals with dyslexia.²¹ Similarly, cognitive tutoring in mathematics can induce neuroplastic changes and improve brain function in children with dyscalculia.⁸⁵ Emerging techniques, such as transcranial electrical stimulation (tES), are also being explored as methods to non-invasively modulate brain activity and induce neuroplasticity to improve cognitive skills in individuals with dyslexia and dyscalculia, although this research is still in its early stages.²³

Interventions can be further refined and personalized by tailoring them to an individual’s specific neurocognitive profile, including their unique pattern of cognitive strengths and weaknesses identified through assessments like memory testing.²² This allows for a more precise targeting of the underlying mechanisms contributing to the learning difficulty.

The concept of neuroplasticity offers a hopeful and dynamic perspective on learning disabilities, suggesting that they are not necessarily immutable or fixed conditions. If LDs are rooted in atypical brain development and function ⁷, and the brain possesses the capacity for change and adaptation throughout life ²², then targeted and intensive experiences, in the form of evidence-based interventions, can potentially reshape neural circuits and improve function. This approach moves beyond merely accommodating an individual’s weaknesses; it aims to actively remediate them at a more fundamental neurocognitive level.²¹

Consequently, the most effective interventions are likely to be those that are highly individualized, based on a detailed and comprehensive neurocognitive profile of the learner. Such interventions would target the specific underlying weaknesses identified—be it phonological processing, visuospatial working memory, executive functions, or processing speed—rather than adopting a generic, one-size-fits-all “reading help” or “math help” approach. Given the established heterogeneity of learning disabilities and their diverse neurocognitive underpinnings ¹³, pinpointing whether a child’s reading difficulty, for example, stems primarily from phonological deficits, slow processing speed, or poor working memory ²² allows educators and clinicians to select or design interventions that directly address that identified root cause, thereby maximizing the potential for positive change and improved learning outcomes.

C. Translating Neuroscience Findings into Educational and Clinical Practice

Despite significant advances in understanding the neurocognitive basis of learning disabilities, a persistent gap often exists between neuroscience research findings and their practical application in educational and clinical settings.¹¹⁴ This gap arises partly from the inherent complexity of neuroscience research and the challenges involved in translating these intricate findings into accessible and actionable strategies for practitioners.

A related issue is the prevalence of “neuromyths”—common misconceptions about the brain and learning—among educators and the general public.¹¹⁶ These often arise from misinterpretations or oversimplifications of genuine neuroscience research and can lead to the adoption of ineffective or even counterproductive educational practices. Addressing these neuromyths through accurate and clear translation of research is crucial for ensuring that practices are truly evidence-based.

Professionals such as school psychologists and educational psychologists are uniquely positioned to act as bridges across this research-to-practice gap, given their training in both psychological science and educational systems.¹¹⁵ Fostering stronger collaborative efforts between neuroscientists, cognitive psychologists, clinicians, and educators is essential for facilitating this translation process.⁸²

Effective translation requires more than simply disseminating research findings through academic publications. It necessitates the development of practical, evidence-based strategies, tools, and resources that educators and clinicians can readily understand and implement in their daily work.¹¹⁴ This involves a process of co-production, where researchers and practitioners work together to identify relevant research, interpret its implications for practice, and develop usable applications. This ongoing dialogue, coupled with high-quality professional development, can help ensure that the insights gleaned from neuroscience are effectively integrated into educational and therapeutic approaches.

Overcoming pervasive neuromyths ¹¹⁶ is a critical step in this translation process. Misconceptions, such as the belief that using colored overlays can cure dyslexia ¹¹⁶, can lead to the misallocation of resources and time on ineffective practices. Correcting these misunderstandings requires proactive and clear communication from the scientific community about what the research actually indicates regarding brain function, learning, and learning disabilities. Promoting critical thinking skills among practitioners to enable them to evaluate claims about brain-based learning is also essential. By fostering a more scientifically literate community of educators and clinicians, the field can move towards educational and therapeutic practices that are genuinely informed by robust neurocognitive science, rather than by fads or misinterpretations.

VIII. Current Research Trends and Future Directions

The study of the neurocognitive underpinnings of learning disabilities is a dynamic and rapidly evolving field. Current research is characterized by the integration of advanced technologies, a deeper exploration of genetic and environmental interactions, a strong emphasis on longitudinal studies for early identification, a nuanced understanding of comorbidity, and a push towards more ecologically valid assessments and preventative interventions.

A. Advancements in Neuroimaging and Analytical Techniques (including AI/ML)

Neuroimaging techniques—including structural MRI, functional MRI (fMRI), diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) for white matter tractography, and electroencephalography (EEG)—continue to play a pivotal role in advancing our understanding of learning disabilities.²⁴ These tools allow researchers to identify structural and functional brain differences associated with LDs, map neural networks involved in learning, and even predict learning outcomes or response to intervention.

A significant recent trend is the application of machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) to analyze the complex, high-dimensional data generated by neuroimaging and comprehensive behavioral assessments.¹⁰⁸ ML algorithms can be trained to identify subtle patterns in brain structure or activity that differentiate individuals with LDs from their typically developing peers, potentially leading to more accurate and objective diagnostic models. AI is also being explored for its potential to create adaptive learning algorithms that can be personalized based on an individual’s neurological and cognitive profile, providing tailored feedback and support.¹²¹

The synergy between advanced neuroimaging modalities and sophisticated AI/ML analytical techniques holds considerable promise for the field. These computational approaches can uncover subtle, complex, and distributed patterns in brain data that may not be apparent through traditional statistical analyses. This could lead to the development of more refined neurocognitive models of various learning disabilities and the identification of novel biomarkers that could improve diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity, particularly for early detection or for distinguishing between subtypes of LDs that may appear behaviorally similar.¹¹⁹

However, while AI and ML offer exciting possibilities for personalization and improved diagnostics, their application in the context of learning disabilities also brings forth important ethical considerations. Issues related to data privacy, the potential for algorithmic bias (e.g., if models are trained on unrepresentative datasets, potentially disadvantaging certain demographic groups), and the “black box” nature of some complex ML models (where the reasoning behind a prediction is not easily interpretable) require careful and ongoing attention. Ensuring equitable access, transparency, and responsible application of these powerful technologies will be crucial as they are integrated into clinical and educational practices for individuals with learning disabilities.

B. The Role of Genetics and Epigenetics

The understanding that learning disabilities have a significant neurobiological component is strongly supported by research into their genetic underpinnings. Conditions like dyslexia and dyscalculia are known to be highly familial and heritable.⁸ Genetic research, including twin studies, family aggregation studies, and molecular genetic approaches (e.g., genome-wide association studies – GWAS), has identified numerous candidate genes that may contribute to the risk of developing LDs. Furthermore, there is evidence of genetic overlap between different learning disabilities and between LDs and other neurodevelopmental conditions such as ADHD, suggesting shared etiological pathways [¹²⁴ (Reddit discussion of studies)].

Beyond the direct influence of DNA sequence, the field of epigenetics is emerging as a crucial area of investigation.¹²² Epigenetics refers to modifications to DNA (such as methylation) that do not change the underlying genetic sequence but can regulate gene expression—turning genes on or off. These epigenetic marks can be influenced by environmental factors, and there is growing interest in how such mechanisms might mediate the interplay between genetic predispositions and environmental influences in the development of LDs. For example, early life experiences, nutritional factors, or exposure to toxins could potentially lead to epigenetic changes that affect brain development and cognitive functions relevant to learning [¹²⁴ (childhood maltreatment), ¹²³].

The strong genetic component identified in many learning disabilities suggests that the associated neurobiological differences are, at least in part, predetermined by an individual’s genetic makeup. However, it is also clear that the genetics of LDs are complex. Rather than single genes causing specific disorders, it is more likely that multiple genes, each with a small effect (polygenicity), contribute to an individual’s overall risk or vulnerability.¹⁹ This polygenic nature, combined with the crucial role of gene-environment interactions, means that genetics is not destiny. Environmental factors, including the quality of instruction and the intensity and type of intervention, can still significantly shape developmental trajectories and learning outcomes.

Epigenetic research ¹²³ opens an exciting new frontier for understanding precisely how environmental factors can modulate these genetic predispositions for learning disabilities. If adverse environmental exposures (e.g., chronic stress, malnutrition, lack of early stimulation) can lead to epigenetic modifications that negatively impact gene expression related to brain development and cognitive function ¹²³, then conversely, positive and supportive environments, coupled with targeted early interventions, could potentially promote more favorable epigenetic profiles. This could, in theory, mitigate underlying genetic risks for LDs, offering novel avenues for prevention and intervention by focusing on optimizing these environmental modulators of gene activity.

C. Longitudinal Studies and Early Identification

Longitudinal research designs, which follow individuals over extended periods, are critical for advancing our understanding of the neurocognitive underpinnings of learning disabilities.⁹ These studies allow researchers to map developmental trajectories of brain structure, function, and cognitive skills, to identify early neurocognitive markers that may predict later learning difficulties, and to assess the long-term impact of LDs and the effectiveness of various interventions.

A major focus of current research is the early identification of children at risk for learning disabilities, often based on a combination of factors such as family history of LDs, performance on preliteracy or early numeracy skills assessments, and emerging neurocognitive markers.⁸ The rationale is that if at-risk children can be identified before they experience significant academic failure, interventions can be implemented more proactively and are likely to be more effective. Neurocognitive markers, such as atypical brain activation patterns during relevant tasks or subtle differences in brain structure, may signal differences in neurodevelopment even before behavioral symptoms of an LD become prominent or meet diagnostic criteria.¹⁰⁷

Longitudinal research is particularly key to disentangling questions of cause and effect in the neurobiology of learning disabilities. For example, it helps to determine whether observed brain differences are precursors that contribute to the development of learning difficulties, or whether they are, at least in part, consequences of these difficulties (e.g., reduced reading experience in dyslexia might lead to less developed reading-related neural pathways). Cross-sectional studies, which compare different groups at a single point in time, can reveal associations between brain characteristics and LD status, but only prospective longitudinal designs ⁹ that track children from before formal instruction begins can clarify the temporal sequence of these relationships. For instance, such studies are vital for determining if atypicalities in the VWFA ⁴⁸ are present before a child struggles to learn to read, or if these differences emerge or are exacerbated as a result of persistent reading failure. Clarifying this etiological pathway is critical for refining our understanding of how LDs develop.

The increasing push for early identification using neurocognitive markers necessitates the development of assessment tools that are not only sensitive and specific but also appropriate and feasible for use with very young children. Alongside the development of such tools, careful consideration must be given to the ethical frameworks surrounding their use, including the potential implications of early labeling. While the primary goal of early identification is to facilitate preventative intervention and support ¹⁰⁹, there are inherent risks of stigma or misdiagnosis if the identified markers are not sufficiently robust or if appropriate and timely support systems are not readily available following identification.

D. Focus on Comorbidity and Dimensional Approaches

The high rates of comorbidity—the co-occurrence of two or more disorders in the same individual—are a prominent feature in the landscape of learning disabilities.⁶ Different LDs frequently co-occur (e.g., dyslexia with dyscalculia or dysgraphia), and LDs also show high comorbidity with other neurodevelopmental disorders, most notably ADHD.

This frequent overlap challenges purely categorical views of these conditions (where each disorder is seen as a distinct and separate entity). Instead, it lends support to dimensional approaches, which conceptualize learning abilities and disabilities as lying on a continuum.¹⁹ These approaches emphasize shared underlying cognitive deficits (e.g., in working memory, processing speed, executive functions) and common risk factors that may cut across traditional diagnostic boundaries. Current research is actively exploring both the shared and distinct neurobiological abnormalities in individuals with comorbid conditions to better understand these complex relationships.³²

A dimensional approach, which focuses on assessing continua of various neurocognitive abilities (e.g., the spectrum of phonological processing ability, working memory capacity, or attentional control) rather than relying solely on strict diagnostic categories, may better capture the complex reality of how learning differences manifest in individuals.⁴³ Many children do not fit neatly into a single LD category; they often present with a mix of symptoms and a unique profile of cognitive strengths and weaknesses. A dimensional perspective acknowledges that underlying cognitive skills vary along a spectrum, and difficulties in academic learning arise when these skills fall below a certain threshold required to meet the demands of specific tasks. This approach allows for a more individualized profiling of a person’s specific cognitive strengths and weaknesses across multiple domains, irrespective of whether they meet the criteria for one or more discrete diagnostic labels.

Furthermore, research on comorbidity needs to progress beyond simply documenting the rates of co-occurrence. A critical future direction is to elucidate the underlying mechanisms that drive these overlaps. Are comorbid conditions primarily due to shared genetic factors that confer a broad vulnerability to neurodevelopmental challenges? Do they arise from common underlying cognitive deficits (e.g., executive dysfunction) that impact multiple academic and behavioral domains? Or are there causal relationships where the presence of one disorder increases the risk for developing another (e.g., the attentional difficulties in ADHD making it harder to acquire foundational reading skills, thereby increasing risk for dyslexia)? Answering these fundamental questions about the nature of comorbidity is vital for developing effective and integrated intervention strategies for individuals who present with multiple learning and/or behavioral challenges. For instance, understanding whether comorbid dyslexia and ADHD both involve fronto-parietal network dysfunction affecting executive functions ³² would guide interventions that target these shared neural and cognitive systems.

E. The Need for Ecologically Valid Assessments and Preventative Interventions

Two other important trends shaping future research and practice are the push for more ecologically valid assessment methods and a stronger emphasis on preventative interventions.

Ecological validity in assessment refers to the extent to which tasks used in testing accurately represent the cognitive demands of real-world situations and how well performance on these tests predicts an individual’s functioning in everyday contexts, such as the classroom or workplace.¹²⁷ There is a growing recognition that traditional neuropsychological tests, while valuable for isolating specific cognitive functions, may not always capture how these functions operate in the complex, dynamic, and often distracting environments of real life. Consequently, there is a call for the development and use of more ecologically valid assessments, particularly for executive functions, to better understand an individual’s practical challenges and strengths.¹²⁷

Preventative interventions, informed by our understanding of neuroscience and targeting the early precursors of learning difficulties, represent a key goal for the field.¹⁷ Frameworks such as the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative, which aims to link neurobiological mechanisms to observable behaviors across a range of mental functions, may help facilitate the translation of basic neuroscience findings into behavioral domains that are amenable to early and preventative intervention strategies.¹²⁹

A significant disconnect can often exist between an individual’s performance on highly structured, decontextualized neuropsychological tests administered in a quiet clinic room and their ability to effectively manage complex learning tasks in a busy, interactive classroom setting. Ecologically valid assessments aim to bridge this gap by simulating real-world demands more closely.¹²⁷ For example, assessing working memory using a task that mimics classroom note-taking while listening to a lecture, or evaluating attentional control in a virtual environment with realistic distractions, might provide a more accurate picture of an individual’s functional impairments and strengths. This, in turn, can lead to more relevant diagnostic findings and inform the development of interventions that are better tailored to support success in real-life academic and social settings.

Preventative interventions ¹⁷ embody a proactive, public health-oriented approach to learning disabilities. Instead of waiting for significant academic failure and its associated negative consequences (such as low self-esteem, anxiety, and school disengagement) to take root, this approach aims to identify at-risk children early and provide targeted support to bolster foundational neurocognitive skills. If early neurocognitive markers can reliably identify risk ⁹, and if the foundational cognitive skills for literacy and numeracy are well understood, then interventions can be designed to strengthen these skills universally for all children or to provide more intensive, targeted support to those identified as being at highest risk, ideally before they are formally diagnosed with a learning disability. This represents a shift from a deficit-remediation model, which primarily reacts to established problems, to a developmental support model, which seeks to optimize developmental trajectories and prevent difficulties from escalating.

IX. Conclusion

The exploration of the neurocognitive underpinnings of learning disabilities has revealed a complex and multifaceted landscape. These conditions, far from being a reflection of low intelligence or lack of effort, are rooted in distinct neurodevelopmental differences that shape how individuals perceive, process, and engage with information.

A. Recap of the Neurocognitive Foundations of Learning Disabilities

Learning disabilities are fundamentally neurodevelopmental conditions characterized by specific and often persistent differences in brain structure and function. Structurally, these can include variations in grey and white matter volume and integrity within key neural networks, as well as atypicalities in cortical development and connectivity. Functionally, individuals with LDs often exhibit distinct patterns of brain activation and altered neural connectivity when engaged in tasks relevant to their area of difficulty.

Major learning disabilities such as dyslexia and dyscalculia present with relatively distinct neurocognitive profiles. Dyslexia is primarily associated with atypicalities in left-hemisphere language and visual-orthographic processing networks, leading to core deficits in phonological processing, word recognition, and reading fluency. Neurobiological markers often include altered structure and function in regions like the temporo-parietal cortex, the occipito-temporal cortex (including the Visual Word Form Area), and the inferior frontal gyrus, as well as compromised integrity of white matter tracts such as the arcuate fasciculus.

Dyscalculia, in contrast, is predominantly linked to differences in parietal and fronto-parietal networks crucial for numerical and quantity processing. The intraparietal sulcus is a key region implicated, with structural and functional variations associated with difficulties in number sense, magnitude comparison, and arithmetic fact retrieval. Fronto-parietal connectivity issues can further impact the integration of numerical understanding with executive functions necessary for mathematical problem-solving.

Beyond these domain-specific profiles, a critical insight is the pervasive role of cross-cutting, domain-general cognitive processes. Deficits in working memory (both verbal and visuospatial), processing speed, attentional control, and various executive functions (such as planning, organization, and inhibition) are frequently observed across different types of learning disabilities and often contribute significantly to the learning difficulties experienced. These cognitive functions are largely subserved by distributed brain networks, with fronto-parietal systems playing a particularly prominent role. Atypicalities in these foundational cognitive systems and their neural bases can therefore have widespread effects on learning.

B. The Path Forward: Integrating Research and Practice

The journey to fully understand and effectively address learning disabilities is ongoing, but the progress made through neurocognitive research offers a clear path forward. This path necessitates a continued commitment to interdisciplinary research that integrates insights from neuroscience, cognitive psychology, genetics, education, and clinical practice. The complex interplay of genetic predispositions, brain development, cognitive processing, and environmental factors requires a collaborative approach to unravel the full picture of learning disabilities.

A crucial imperative is the improved translation of research findings into evidence-based diagnostic tools and targeted interventions. Diagnostic approaches are evolving from purely behavioral criteria to incorporate neurocognitive markers, holding the promise of earlier and more precise identification of at-risk individuals. Interventions, informed by an understanding of underlying neural mechanisms and leveraging the brain’s capacity for neuroplasticity, can be tailored to address specific cognitive weaknesses and build new neural pathways to support learning.

The potential for early identification based on neurocognitive markers offers a paradigm shift towards preventative strategies. By identifying children at risk before significant academic failure occurs, interventions can be implemented proactively, potentially altering developmental trajectories and mitigating the long-term impact of learning disabilities. This proactive stance is essential for fostering positive academic and socio-emotional outcomes.

Furthermore, the field is moving towards more personalized approaches that consider an individual’s unique neurocognitive profile, acknowledging the dimensional nature of learning abilities and disabilities rather than relying solely on categorical diagnoses. This nuanced perspective allows for interventions that are tailored to an individual’s specific pattern of strengths and weaknesses, maximizing their potential for success.

Ultimately, the overarching goal of research into the neurocognitive underpinnings of learning disabilities is not merely to understand these conditions in abstract terms, but to leverage that understanding to create tangible improvements in the lives of individuals who experience them. This requires a continuous and dynamic cycle of rigorous scientific discovery, effective translation of knowledge into practical tools and strategies, diligent implementation in educational and clinical settings, and ongoing evaluation of outcomes. A neurocognitive perspective fosters a more dynamic and optimistic view of learning disabilities, emphasizing the potential for change, growth, and adaptation through the brain’s inherent neuroplasticity, rather than focusing on fixed and immutable deficits. This understanding can empower both individuals with learning disabilities and those who support them, fostering a growth mindset and encouraging persistence in the journey towards unlocking every learner’s full potential.

Works cited

1. www.parentcenterhub.org, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.parentcenterhub.org/ld/#:~:text=Specific%20learning%20disability%20means%20a,do%20mathematical%20calculations%2C%20including%20conditions
2. Learning Disabilities (LD) – Center for Parent Information and Resources, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.parentcenterhub.org/ld/
3. Clinical Characteristics of Learning Disabilities – Mental Disorders …, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK332886/
4. Specific Learning Disability | Ohio Department of Education and Workforce, accessed May 13, 2025, https://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Special-Education/Disability-Specific-Resources/Specific-Learning-Disability
5. 7 Learning Disabilities Every Psychology Professional Should Study | Walden University, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.waldenu.edu/online-masters-programs/ms-in-psychology/resource/seven-learning-disabilities-every-psychology-professional-should-study
6. Psychiatry.org – What Are Specific Learning Disorders? – American Psychiatric Association, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/specific-learning-disorder/what-is-specific-learning-disorder
7. About Learning Disabilities | NICHD – Eunice Kennedy Shriver …, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/learning/conditioninfo
8. Functional characteristics of developmental dyslexia in left-hemispheric posterior brain regions predate reading onset – PMC, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3277560/
9. Developmental dyslexia: Neurocognitive theories and challenges for educators, accessed May 13, 2025, https://solportal.ibe-unesco.org/articles/developmental-dyslexia-neurocognitive-theories-and-challenges-for-educators/
10. “Calculating faces”: can face perception paradigms enrich dyscalculia research? – Frontiers, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1218124/full
11. Dyscalculia | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/dyscalculia
12. DSM-5 Changes in Diagnostic Criteria for Specific Learning Disabilities, accessed May 13, 2025, https://dyslexiaida.org/dsm-5-changes-in-diagnostic-criteria-for-specific-learning-disabilities-sld1-what-are-the-implications/
13. (PDF) Neuropsychological Assessment of Children with Learning …, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359616290_Neuropsychological_Assessment_of_Children_with_Learning_Disabilities
14. A Thematic Review on Using the Learning Disabilities Diagnostic …, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.57197/JDR-2024-0111
15. Learning Disabilities – Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of …, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/factsheets/learningdisabilities
16. Types of Learning Disabilities – Learning Disabilities Association of Washington |, accessed May 13, 2025, https://ldawa.org/types-of-learning-disabilities/
17. Learning Disabilities & Disorders: What To Know – Cleveland Clinic, accessed May 13, 2025, https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/4865-learning-disabilities-what-you-need-to-know
18. Learning Disabilities | College Plaza Pediatrics, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.collegeplazapediatrics.com/learning-disabilities.php
19. Neuropsychology of Learning Disabilities: The Past and the Future …, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6249682/
20. Dyslexia: neurobiology, clinical features, evaluation and …, accessed May 13, 2025, https://tp.amegroups.org/article/view/30809/html
21. Dyslexia: neurobiology, clinical features, evaluation and …, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7082242/
22. Addressing Learning Disabilities through Neuroplasticity Interventions – Cajal Academy, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.cajalacademy.org/academics/neuroplasticity-interventions
23. Effects of transcranial electrical stimulation on academic and cognitive skills in individuals with specific learning disabilities: A systematic review – PubMed, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40324584/
24. (PDF) Brain Imaging Studies in Children with Learning Disabilities, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387686876_Brain_Imaging_Studies_in_Children_with_Learning_Disabilities
25. Pediatric malformations of cortical development (MCD) — Children’s Health Neurology, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.childrens.com/specialties-services/conditions/malformations-of-cortical-development
26. Malformations of cortical development: clinical features and genetic causes – PMC, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5548104/
27. Understanding White Matter Disease: Symptoms, Causes, and Treatments – WebMD, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.webmd.com/brain/white-matter-disease
28. White Matter Disease: What It Is, Symptoms & Treatment – Cleveland Clinic, accessed May 13, 2025, https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/23018-white-matter-disease
29. A decade of white matter connectivity studies in developmental dyslexia – Oxford Academic, accessed May 13, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/psyrad/article/doi/10.1093/psyrad/kkae029/7928120
30. Atypical Brain Connectivity During Pragmatic and Semantic Language Processing in Children with Autism – PubMed Central, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11592362/
31. Patterns of Atypical Functional Connectivity and Behavioral Links in Autism Differ Between Default, Salience, and Executive Networks – PubMed Central, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5027998/
32. Comparative Meta-analyses of Brain Structural and Functional …, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7212063/
33. Shared and Specific Neural Correlates of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of 243 Task-Based Functional MRI Studies | American Journal of Psychiatry, accessed May 13, 2025, https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.20230270
34. A meta-analysis of functional reading systems in typically … – Frontiers, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00191/full
35. Disruption of functional networks in dyslexia: A whole-brain, data-driven analysis of connectivity – PMC, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3984371/
36. Neurocognitive architecture of working memory – PMC – PubMed Central, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4605545/
37. Working Memory From the Psychological and Neurosciences Perspectives: A Review, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00401/full
38. The frontoparietal network: function, electrophysiology, and importance of individual precision mapping – PMC, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6136121/
39. Developing brain networks for working memory in the classroom – IBE — Science of learning portal, accessed May 13, 2025, https://solportal.ibe-unesco.org/articles/early-proportional-reasoning-and-probabilistic-thinking-predict-math-achievement-at-school-2/
40. med.stanford.edu, accessed May 13, 2025, https://med.stanford.edu/content/dam/sm/sasnl/documents/17_Ashkenazi_Underpinnings_13.pdf
41. Common neural substrates of diverse neurodevelopmental disorders – PMC, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9924912/
42. Learning Disabilities – Amen Clinics, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.amenclinics.com/conditions/learning-disabilities/
43. Co-occurring disorders of learning: Why they matter for practice and research in educational neuroscience, accessed May 13, 2025, https://solportal.ibe-unesco.org/articles/co-occurring-disorders-of-learning-why-they-matter-for-practice-and-research-in-educational-neuroscience/
44. Editorial: Interpreting the Comorbidity of Learning Disorders – PMC, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8696180/
45. Executive Functions in Neurodevelopmental Disorders: Comorbidity Overlaps Between Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder and Specific Learning Disorders – Frontiers, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2021.594234/full
46. Dyslexia and the Brain: What Does Current Research Tell Us? | Reading Rockets, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.readingrockets.org/topics/dyslexia/articles/dyslexia-and-brain-what-does-current-research-tell-us
47. White Matter Alterations in Infants at Risk for Developmental Dyslexia – PubMed Central, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6074795/
48. Small or absent Visual Word Form Area is a trait of dyslexia – PubMed, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39868322/
49. Small or absent Visual Word Form Area is a trait of dyslexia – bioRxiv, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.01.14.632854v1
50. Developmental dyslexia: dysfunction of a left hemisphere reading network – PubMed Central, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3340948/
51. Neurobiological bases of reading comprehension: Insights from …, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3646421/
52. The typical and atypical developing mind: a common model …, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/development-and-psychopathology/article/typical-and-atypical-developing-mind-a-common-model/627489FBC5BA653C0407881409F55DD3
53. Multimodal investigation of the neurocognitive deficits underlying dyslexia in adulthood, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.11.12.623217v1.full-text
54. EEG Resting State Functional Connectivity in Adult Dyslexics Using Phase Lag Index and Graph Analysis – Frontiers, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00341/full
55. (PDF) Attention Dysfunction Subtypes of Developmental Dyslexia – ResearchGate, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268229114_Attention_Dysfunction_Subtypes_of_Developmental_Dyslexia
56. Anatomical and behavioural correlates of auditory perception in developmental dyslexia, accessed May 13, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/148/3/833/7762235
57. Decoding Auditory Dyslexia: Signs, Causes & Support – Forbrain, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.forbrain.com/dyslexia-children/auditory-dyslexia/
58. Working Memory: The Engine for Learning – International Dyslexia Association, accessed May 13, 2025, https://dyslexiaida.org/working-memory-the-engine-for-learning/
59. Working memory in school children with dyslexia. A relational analysis – Revista OCNOS, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.revistaocnos.com/index.php/ocnos/article/download/222/425/3615
60. Working Memory Profiles of Children With Dyslexia, Developmental Language Disorder, or Both – PMC – PubMed Central, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6808376/
61. Cognitive Assessment for Dyslexia Research (CAB-DX) – CogniFit, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.cognifit.com/dyslexia-test
62. Neuro-Behavioral Correlates of Executive Dysfunctions in … – Frontiers, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.708863/full
63. Executive working memory processes in dyslexia: Behavioral and fMRI evidence | TeacherToolkit, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.teachertoolkit.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Scandinavian-J-Psychology-2010-BENEVENTI-Executive-working-memory-processes-in-dyslexia-Behavioral-and-fMRI-evidence.pdf
64. Working Memory Deficit in Dyslexia: Behavioral and fMRI Evidence – Taylor & Francis Online, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/00207450903275129
65. Learning Disabilities | wvneuropsychology – Neuropsychology Group of West Virginia, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.ngwv.net/learning-disabilities
66. Current Perspectives on the Cerebellum and Reading Development – PMC – PubMed Central, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6078792/
67. A test of the cerebellar hypothesis of dyslexia in adequate and inadequate responders to reading intervention, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3891301/
68. Persistent Differences in Brain Structure in … – Frontiers, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2020.00272/full
69. Effectiveness of cognitive and mathematical programs on dyscalculia and mathematical difficulties – ScienceDirect – DOI, accessed May 13, 2025, https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.irrdd.2023.08.004
70. Persistent Differences in Brain Structure in Developmental Dyscalculia: A Longitudinal Morphometry Study – PMC, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7379856/
71. Developmental trajectories of grey and white matter in dyscalculia – ResearchGate, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259171852_Developmental_trajectories_of_grey_and_white_matter_in_dyscalculia
72. What is developmental dyscalculia and what does it look like in the brain? – IBE — Science of learning portal, accessed May 13, 2025, https://solportal.ibe-unesco.org/articles/what-is-developmental-dyscalculia-and-what-does-it-look-like-in-the-brain/
73. Attentional networks in developmental dyscalculia – PMC – PubMed Central, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2821357/
74. No evidence for systematic white matter correlates of dyslexia and dyscalculia – PMC, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5814378/
75. Numerical Cognition | Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology, accessed May 13, 2025, https://oxfordre.com/psychology/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.001.0001/acrefore-9780190236557-e-61?d=%2F10.1093%2Facrefore%2F9780190236557.001.0001%2Facrefore-9780190236557-e-61&p=emailAUX7PagH50FYA
76. Intraparietal sulcus – Wikipedia, accessed May 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intraparietal_sulcus
77. Investigating Frontoparietal Networks and Activation in Children with Mathematics Learning Difficulties: Cases with Different De – bioRxiv, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.09.12.557321v3.full.pdf
78. Mathematical learning deficits originate in early childhood from atypical development of a frontoparietal brain network | PLOS Biology, accessed May 13, 2025, https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001407
79. Multi-method brain imaging reveals impaired representations of number as well as altered connectivity in adults with dyscalculia, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6494208/
80. Children With Dyscalculia Show Hippocampal Hyperactivity During Symbolic Number Perception – PMC, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8330842/
81. Developmental dyscalculia: An investigation into the relationships between mathematical deficits and neurocognition – ResearchGate, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378109323_Developmental_dyscalculia_An_investigation_into_the_relationships_between_mathematical_deficits_and_neurocognition
82. Dyscalculia: neuroscience and education – PMC, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3024534/
83. The Ultimate Guide to Dyscalculia/Maths Processing Disorder – AU Site – IDL, accessed May 13, 2025, https://idlsgroup.com/au/blog/2022/10/18/the-ultimate-guide-to-dyscalculia-maths-processing-disorder-2/
84. Key Characteristics of Dyscalculia: A Math Learning Disability – Magrid, accessed May 13, 2025, https://magrid.education/key-characteristics-of-dyscalculia-a-math-learning-disability/
85. Working memory in children’s math learning and its disruption in …, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10785441/
86. Neurocognitive mechanisms of co-occurring math difficulties in dyslexia: Differences in executive function and visuospatial processing – PubMed Central, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10918042/
87. Dyscalculia – Minnesota Neuropsychology, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.mnneuropsychology.com/articles/dyscalculia.html
88. Dyscalculia and typical math achievement are associated with individual differences in number specific executive function – PMC, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8183686/
89. Processing Speed: What It Is, Conditions & How To Improve It – Cleveland Clinic, accessed May 13, 2025, https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/processing-speed
90. Exploring Cognitive Skills: What is Processing Speed? – HappyNeuron Pro, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.happyneuronpro.com/en/info/what-is-processing-speed/
91. The Adverse Academic and Social Effects of Slowed Processing Speed – Tatyana Elleseff, accessed May 13, 2025, https://tatyanaelleseff.com/processing-speed/
92. Processing Speed – Cognitive Skill – CogniFit, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.cognifit.com/science/processing-speed
93. Attentional control – Wikipedia, accessed May 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attentional_control
94. Anxiety and Attentional Bias in Children with Specific Learning Disorders – PMC, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6639079/
95. Neurocognitive Profile in Children with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Dyslexia – Medical Science and Discovery, accessed May 13, 2025, https://medscidiscovery.com/index.php/msd/article/download/995/767
96. A neurocognitive account of attentional control theory: how does trait anxiety affect the brain’s at – CentAUR, accessed May 13, 2025, https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/113874/1/A%20neurocognitive%20account%20of%20attentional%20control%20theory%20%20how%20does%20trait%20anxiety%20affect%20the%20brain%20s%20attentional%20networks%20.pdf
97. Full article: A neurocognitive account of attentional control theory: how does trait anxiety affect the brain’s attentional networks? – Taylor & Francis Online, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02699931.2022.2159936
98. Pathologies of brain attentional networks – ERP Lab for Developmental Studies, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.deverplab.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/5.pdf
99. [2410.09422] SimBrainNet: Evaluating Brain Network Similarity for Attention Disorders, accessed May 13, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.09422
100. Executive Function Deficits – ASHA, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.asha.org/practice-portal/clinical-topics/executive-function-deficits/
101. Executive dysfunction – Wikipedia, accessed May 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_dysfunction
102. Neurocognitive factorial structure of executive functions: Evidence from neurotypicals and frontotemporal dementia – PMC – PubMed Central, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11168581/
103. Exploring the impact of executive function deficits on academic readiness and social-emotional skills in children with ADHD and learning disabilities: A systematic review | Scientific Electronic Archives, accessed May 13, 2025, https://scientificelectronicarchives.org/index.php/SEA/article/view/2078
104. The Connection Between Dyslexia and Executive Functioning – Neuhaus Education Center, accessed May 13, 2025, https://neuhaus.org/the-connection-between-dyslexia-and-executive-functioning/
105. Longitudinal Neural Observation Studies of Dyscalculia (Chapter 10) – The Cambridge Handbook of Dyslexia and Dyscalculia, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-dyslexia-and-dyscalculia/longitudinal-neural-observation-studies-of-dyscalculia/F37F17D809ECCF8ADDD5606AABBE3CB5
106. The Connection between Neuropsychology and Learning Disabilities, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.reflectneuro.com/learning-disabilities/
107. IBE — Science of learning portal — Can neuroscience help predict …, accessed May 13, 2025, https://solportal.ibe-unesco.org/articles/can-neuroscience-help-predict-learning-difficulties-in-children/
108. Full article: Early identification and enhanced assessment of …, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21622965.2025.2482754?src=
109. Neurocognitive and behavioral development in young children (1–7 years) with sex chromosome trisomy – PMC, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10160554/
110. Exploring Neuroimaging Gaps in Developmental Disabilities: A Comparative Perspective (P6-6.015) – Neurology.org, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.neurology.org/doi/10.1212/WNL.0000000000208969
111. Do Neuroimaging Gaps Exist in Developmental Disabilities? – Docwire News, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.docwirenews.com/post/do-neuroimaging-gaps-exist-in-developmental-disabilities
112. Using Neuroplasticity to Overcome a Dyscalculia Diagnosis – Arrowsmith School, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.arrowsmith.ca/blog/using-neuroplasticity-to-overcome-a-dyscalculia-diagnosis
113. Live Webinar: Using Memory Assessment to Inform Targeted Interventions: Identifying Strengths to Overcome Attention and Learning Difficulties – WPS, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.wpspublish.com/live-webinar-using-memory-assessment-to-inform-targeted-interventions-identifying-strengths-to-overcome-attention-and-learning-difficulties.html
114. Educational fMRI: From the Lab to the Classroom – Frontiers, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02769/full
115. Why Educational Neuroscience Needs Educational and School Psychology to Effectively Translate Neuroscience to Educational Practice – Frontiers, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.618449/full
116. Addressing neuromyths about learning difficulties – IBE — Science of learning portal, accessed May 13, 2025, https://solportal.ibe-unesco.org/articles/the-impact-of-digital-technology-on-cognitive-processes-and-learning-outcomes-in-early-childhood-evidence-from-neuroscience-2/
117. The utility of multimodal neuroimaging in diagnostic and presurgical workup of drug- resistant focal epilepsy, accessed May 13, 2025, https://epi-care.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Biagioli-ILAE-neuroimaging-task-force-highlight-The-utility-of-multimodal-neuroimaging-in.pdf
118. Neuropsychology of Learning Disabilities: The Past and the Future – PubMed, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29198282/
119. Neuroscience and Neurological Machine Learning for Cognitive Assessment: Advancements, Challenges, and Future Directions | Frontiers Research Topic, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/54556/neuroscience-and-neurological-machine-learning-for-cognitive-assessment-advancements-challenges-and-future-directions/magazine
120. A Supervised Explainable Machine Learning Model for Perioperative Neurocognitive Disorder in Liver-Transplantation Patients and External Validation on the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV Database: Retrospective Study, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.jmir.org/2025/1/e55046
121. (PDF) Adaptive Artificial Intelligence for Students with Specific Learning Disabilities in Reading Science Content – ResearchGate, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391371800_Adaptive_Artificial_Intelligence_for_Students_with_Specific_Learning_Disabilities_in_Reading_Science_Content
122. Neurodevelopmental disorders: current research status and future challenges – Frontiers, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/69476/neurodevelopmental-disorders-current-research-status-and-future-challenges
123. Epigenetics and learning: How the environment shapes gene expression, and the possible consequences for learning and behaviour – IBE — Science of learning portal, accessed May 13, 2025, https://solportal.ibe-unesco.org/articles/epigenetics-and-learning-how-the-environment-shapes-gene-expression-and-the-possible-consequences-for-learning-and-behaviour/
124. Researchers have found the genes linked to Obsessive Compulsive Disorder for the first time, after identifying 30 regions on the human genome – Reddit, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1kliw9g/researchers_have_found_the_genes_linked_to/
125. Exploring neurodevelopmental concerns: insights from a public neuropediatric learning disabilities multiprofessional outpatient – Frontiers, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1363536/pdf
126. Measurement issues in longitudinal studies of mental health problems in children with neurodevelopmental disorders – PMC, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11917076/
127. Ecological validity in neurocognitive assessment: Systematized review, content analysis, and proposal of an instrument | Request PDF – ResearchGate, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368387769_Ecological_validity_in_neurocognitive_assessment_Systematized_review_content_analysis_and_proposal_of_an_instrument
128. Conceptualization of the term “ecological validity” in neuropsychological research on executive function assessment: a systematic review and call to action – Cambridge University Press, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-international-neuropsychological-society/article/conceptualization-of-the-term-ecological-validity-in-neuropsychological-research-on-executive-function-assessment-a-systematic-review-and-call-to-action/01C595F6F8931798F9053A0628260BA0
129. Neuroscience-Informed Classification of Prevention Interventions in Substance Use Disorders: An RDoC-based Approach | medRxiv, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.09.28.22280342v2.full-text