Chiropractic Neurology: Making a Scientific Difference

Research


Foundational Research 2007 to 2009

GNI research started while G. Kevin Gifford, DC, EDD. was enrolled at the University of Phoenix in a doctoral program in education.  This doctorate required extensive research, and inspired research of chiropractic neurology’s postulates.  Chiropractic neurology teaches that brain function can be changed through careful examination and treatment of dysfunction.  The first research G. Kevin Gifford, DC, EDD. did was examination of the accuracy and effects of chiropractic neurology’s postulates and therapies.  From 2007 to 2009 G. Kevin Gifford, DC, EDD. examined more than 400 patients before, during, and after treatment programs to see whether their neurological function improved.  He found that most of what chiropractic neurology taught was correct, except for physical movement, coordination, and balance – all cerebellum-based functions.  In fact, coordination of movement did not change for any patients, from young to old.  The therapy used during this study was that which physical therapists and chiropractic neurologists use for ataxia – poor physical movement, coordination, and balance.

The discovery that current therapies to rehabilitate cerebellum motor coordination disorders were ineffective caused G. Kevin Gifford, DC, EDD. to search for answers. He studied the anatomy and physiology of the cerebellum, the effects that therapy should have caused, and why there was no change. This process raised some questions and helped G. Kevin Gifford, DC, EDD. developed a few research hypotheses, and new therapy to test his hypotheses.

G. Kevin Gifford, DC, EDD.

Ataxia, Dementia, and Cerebellum Motor Coordination Rehabilitation’: A Two Case Study 2010

Research for this study found Drs Schmahmann and Sherman’s medical syndrome authored in 1998 titled The Cerebellar Cognitive Affective Syndrome. This syndrome was new to medicine and contended that in addition to physical coordination problems, cerebellum dysfunction causes ataxia in thinking and emotion. Cognition is the ability to think, reason, remember and solve problems. Affect includes emotion and feelings. Ataxia – dysfunction in cerebellar coordination of physical movement or higher brain functions such as cognition and affect, may result in memory loss, dementia, learning disorders, emotional and psychiatric disorders, autism spectrum disorder, poor balance, tripping, falling, difficulty speaking, thinking, and many more symptoms. Central to this syndrome is the science that the cerebellum empowers and coordinates all nervous system functions – including the brain.

Ataxia – Physical and Mental Effects

Initial testing for the effects of G. Kevin Gifford, DC, EDD. new cerebellum motor coordination rehabilitation therapy on physical ataxia involved an 89-year old man. The ataxia patient could not stand with his feet together for three seconds without falling, even after 18 months of balance, core stability, and muscle strengthening therapy. G. Kevin Gifford, DC, EDD. new therapy involved sitting on a chair, throwing a ball into the air, and catching it. At the beginning of therapy, he could throw the ball and catch it without missing 6 times with his right hand and 3 times with the left. He was sent home and prescribed 30 minutes of this therapy – 15 minutes with the right and left hands. In two weeks, he was able to throw the ball and catch it without missing 99 times with the right hand and 88 times with the left. He was also able to stand with his feet together without wobbling or falling – even after more than 30 seconds.

Testing mental ataxia involved a 76-year old female patient with early dementia. The Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE; Tombaugh, McDowell, Kristjansson, & Hubley, 1996) was administered and her score was 23, indicating stage 1 dementia. This patient’s chief complaint was that when she drove outside of her neighborhood, she could not find her way back home. After 3 months of cerebellum motor coordination rehabilitation her MMSE (Tombaugh et al., 1996) score was 30 – the highest normal cognition score for this test. This change restored the patient’s independence, and she has kept it for 10 years.

G. Kevin Gifford, DC, EDD.

The Cerebellum Motor Coordination Rehabilitation Program’s Influence on Senior Adult Ataxia and Dementia 2011 to 2013

The Cerebellum Motor Coordination Rehabilitation Program (CMCRP) is exercise-based physiotherapy that improves balance and coordination by improving cerebellum function. Health problems benefited by CMCRP include movement disorders such as physical ataxia – failure of control of movement, and mental ataxia – failure of control of thinking and emotion. These two ataxias – physical and mental, both occur with cerebellum dysfunction. Ataxia symptoms often include difficulty walking, driving a vehicle, writing, vision, speaking and almost any kind of movement. Falls often occur causing severe injuries and even death. Mental ataxia affects higher brain functions responsible for thinking, learning, emotion, happiness, peace, joy, and can cause dementia and great difficulty with emotions. Students of all ages that have cerebellar ataxia may have difficulty learning, understanding instructions, controlling their emotions, and having good relationships with people. The ability to manage our behavior at home, work or school depends heavily on the cerebellum’s coordination influences.

Development of cerebellar science started more than 1,500 years ago, and focused primarily on physical movement problems. In 1898, Dr. Hughlings Jackson taught that the cerebellum influenced the entire brain. From 1898 to 1990 only a small number of research studies attributed cerebellum influences to higher brain functions. In the 1990’s Jeremy Schmahmann, MD, and professor at Harvard University published studies in 1991, 1996, and 1997 that expanded descriptions of the cerebellum’s influence beyond movement coordination to higher brain functions. In 1998 Doctors Schmahmann and Sherman authored a new syndrome in medicine titled The Cerebellar Cognitive Affective Syndrome. This syndrome detailed significant influences of the cerebellum on cognition and emotional affect. Since 1998, more than 5,000 research studies have discussed various aspects of the cerebellum’s influence on higher brain functions.

From 2011 to 2013 Dr. G. Kevin Gifford, DC, EDD. examined and treated 109 senior adults that averaged 87 years of age with CMCRP. Tests used for this study included the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS; Trouillas et al., 1997), and the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (Basic et al., 2009) is the World Federation of Neurology’s cerebellum motor coordination test (RUDAS; Trouillas et al., 1997). ICARS is a 0 to 100 points test where scores of 0 indicate the best level of movement coordination, and 100 the worst. Points are added accordingly to levels of dyscoordination. RUDAS is a 30-point dementia test where 30 indicates good, healthy cognition, and 0 indicates the most advanced level of dementia.

The following Descriptive Statistics table shows that 109 participants were included in this statistical analysis ages 75 to 101 with a mean (average) age of 86.39. Initial ICARS scores ranged from 18 to 98 with an average score of 47.68. Dr. G. Kevin Gifford, DC, EDD. has been observed that falling among senior adults may occur when ICARS scores exceed 36. Initial RUDAS scores ranged from 0 to 30 with a mean score of 19.10. According to RUDAS there are 3 levels of dementia, stages 1, 2, and 3. Stage 1 dementia starts at a RUDAS score of 23, stage 2 at about 18, and stage 3 at about 13. Patient function is mostly independent in stage 1 dementia. Stage 2 dementia requires some oversight and assistance. Patients with stage 3 dementia need supervision and assistance almost all the time.

One hundred nine participants completed 3 months of CMCRP. Improved cerebellum motor coordination is seen in the changes of both the range (lowest to highest) scores and their mean (average) value. Changes in ICARS test scores showed a 25% reversal of physical ataxia. The range of RUDAS scores did not change. This indicates that at least one person had no measurable cognitive functions, and one had the best cognition that RUDAS measures. The RUDAS scores mean value decreased indicating that dementia or mental ataxia was reversed by 13%.

Descriptive Statistics

NMinimumMaximumMean
Age1097510186.69
ICARS 1109189847.69
ICARS 210968135.78
ICARS Functional Change 109+25%
RUDAS 110903019.10
RUDAS 210903021.59
RUDAS Functional Change109+13%
VALID N (listwise)109

Statistical Analysis

Statistical tests were run at the beginning and end of the study. Initial test scores showed a -5.37 correlation between ICARS and RUDAS, indicating a moderate relationship between physical and mental ataxia. This means that the worse cerebellum motor coordination is, the worse cognition becomes and the greater the chance of dementia. The P-P Plot graph shows and almost linear relationship between RUDAS and ICARS, substantiating the relationship between physical and mental ataxia.

2
1

Verification of relationships between variables such as ataxic cerebellum motor coordination and dementia requires experimental research. This occurred as participants completed 3 months of CMCRP. CMCRP therapy was administered within assisted and independent living senior adult communities and in Dr. Kevin Gifford’s office

Experimental Results

Paired-Samples T-Tests assess the difference between test scores before and after therapy. This test helps determine if therapy resulted in a significant difference in function, and the size of that effect. Significance is seen on the right side of the Paired Samples Test table. If Sig. (2-tailed) values are less than .05, the statistical conclusion is that CMCRP therapy caused a significant difference. Significance values of < .001 for both ICARS and RUDAS data pairs says that CMCRP significantly improved cerebellum motor coordination and cognition. Effect size is calculated by dividing the Mean value in the Paired Samples Test by the Std. Deviation. Effect size was 1.289 for cerebellum motor coordination (ICARS) – a very strong effect. The effect size for changes in dementia was -.596, a moderate to strong effect.

3

Summary

CMCRP improved cerebellum function enough to reverse both physical and mental ataxia. This is a unique and remarkable contribution to neuroscience. Dr. G. Kevin Gifford, DC, EDD. and Gifford Neurology Institute seek to bless and help people have a better quality of life. CMCRP has shown that it can do so in a powerful way. Future research will investigate the effects of CMCRP on student learning, human intelligence, psychiatric disorders, and other health problems caused by neurological dysfunction.

G. Kevin Gifford, DC, EDD.

Cognitive Neuroscience in Elementary Education: A Correlational Study of Cerebellum Motor Coordination and Academic Proficiency 2018 ©

The final part of completion of Dr. Kevin Gifford’s doctorate in education (EDD) required completion of a dissertation. A dissertation requires extensive analysis of the research topic and careful attention to formal research procedures. Dr. Gifford’s dissertation assessed correlation between cerebellum motor coordination, and mathematics (Math) and English language arts (ELA). Math and ELA were measured by the State of Arizona’s 2017 AZMerit test. There were eighty-one 5th grade student participants. Cerebellum motor coordination was measured by the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS; Trouillas et al., 1997).

Table 1 shows the number of participants (N), minimum and maximum scores for ICARS, Math and ELA, Mean values, and Standard Deviation (Std. Deviation). Mean values are similar to the average of test scores. Std. Deviation values indicate how widespread participant scores were. Small Std. Deviation values indicate that most scores were closer together, while larger values indicate that scores were spread out further. An ICARS mean value of 25.67 indicates poor cerebellum motor coordination for this age group (10 to 12 years).

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics for Entire Sample

NMinimumMaximumMeanStd. Deviation
ICARS81124425.675.438
AZMerit Math81343536453555.7038.881
AZMerit ELA81242226022514.1731.210
Valid N (listwise)81

Table 2 shows ICARS, Math and ELA according to AZMerit proficiency categories for Math and ELA. The 4 AZMerit proficiency categories from lowest to highest are: minimal, partial, proficient, and highly proficient. It is important to note that 42 of the 81 participants were not proficient in Math and 47 were not proficient in ELA. Mean ICARS scores decreased in both Math and ELA as proficiency increased, indicating a correlative relationship between cerebellum motor coordination and academic proficiency.

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics by AZMerit Proficiency Strata

NMinimumMaximumMeanStd. Deviation
ICARS Math Minimal Proficiency17234429.245.890
MATH Minimal Proficiency17343535263501.5929.069
ICARS Math Partial Proficiency25173826.244.833
Math Partial Proficiency25353035583545.049.181
ICARS Math Proficient33123323.795.073
Math Proficient33356236033578.8510.975
ICARS Math Highly Proficient6182723.503.391
Math Highly Proficient6360936453626.1717.023
ICARS ELA Minimally Proficient35134426.466.391
ELA Minimally Proficient35242225072488.2319.881
ICARS ELA Partially Proficient11222925.732.901
ELA Partially Proficient11251025182514.002.490
ICARS ELA Proficient25123324.965.272
ELA Proficient25252325532535.929.912
ICARS ELA Highly Proficient5202722.402.881
ELA Highly Proficient5256026022585.2018.158

Correlation is assessed by the Pearson Correlation test in Table 3. A Pearson Correlation coefficient (PCC) shows the extent of the relationship between 2 variables. The PCC for ICARS and Math was -3.89, and -.183 for ICARS and ELA. These values indicate a small to medium correlation of ICARS to Math and a small correlation to ELA. It is interesting to note that the PCC for Math and ELA is medium to strong – indicating that academic proficiency in either category is related to the other.

Table 3

Pearson Correlation Test

ICARSAZMerit Math (Math)AZMerit ELA (ELA)
ICARSPearson Correlation1-.389**-.183
Sig. (1-tailed).000.051
N818181
AZMerit MathPearson Correlation-.389**1 .645**
Sig. (1-tailed).000.000
N818181
AZMerit ELAPearson Correlation-.183.645**1
Sig. (1-tailed).051.000
N818181

Summary

The hypotheses of this dissertation stated that a relationship existed between cerebellum motor coordination and academic proficiency in Math and ELA. That is what was found. While this is an important finding, the overarching goal of this research was, and still is, helping students succeed in school. Brain function is central to learning, and the cerebellum is central to brain function. Future research will assess the effects of cerebellum motor coordination rehabilitation therapy on academic proficiency

G. Kevin Gifford, DC, EDD.

Cerebellum Motor Coordination Rehabilitation and Academic Proficiency: A Controlled Experimental Study 2018

In 2017 and 2018, one hundred students participated in this controlled, experimental research study. These included students from two charter schools in the Phoenix, Arizona area and two rural elementary schools in Gila County, Arizona. All students were in 5th grade, except those from a charter school in Phoenix, Arizona. The Phoenix school included students from 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th grades. The goal of this study was to examine the effects of Dr. Kevin Gifford’s Cerebellum Motor Coordination Rehabilitation Program (CMCRP) on academic proficiency and cerebellum motor coordination. This study’s hypothesis stated that cerebellum motor coordination and academic proficiency in Math and English Language Arts (ELA) are related, and proffered that CMCRP would significantly influence academic proficiency.

Study participants were divided into two groups – experimental and control. Experimental group students participated in CMCRP three times per week for 30 minutes with a total of 18 sessions. Control group participants participated in regular physical education classes and not CMCRP. Students were tested by school personnel with Galileo in November 2017 and again after 6 weeks of CMCRP near the end of February 2018. The International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS; Trouillas et al., 1997) measured cerebellum motor coordination and was administered to all participants before and after CMCRP.

Understanding what the Galileo test is, and what it tests, is vital to understanding results from this study. Galileo tests expected grade-level academic proficiency. Grade-level proficiency indicates that students can perform ELA (reading and writing), and Mathematics tasks at their current grade-level as dictated by State and Federal curricula. Galileo has four categories of proficiency: a) highly proficient, b) proficient, c) partially proficient, and d) minimally proficient. Partial and Minimal proficiency scores indicate that students are not proficient at their current grade-level, while Proficient and Highly Proficient indicate at or above grade-level proficiency. This analysis has grouped the highly proficient and proficient students into one Proficient group because these students were at or above proficient standards and because the number of students in the highly proficient and proficient groups was too small for meaningful statistical analysis.

In statistical research, confidence in the data requires a large enough number of participants in all research categories. Statistical research reports from the Federal and Arizona State Departments of Education indicated that our 100-participant research group should have provided adequate participants in all proficiency groups – if our participant sample had a normal proficiency distribution. Our sample, however, was strongly skewed to the Minimally Proficient category for both Math and ELA. Participation invitation letters were sent to all parents of 5th grade students in the four participating schools. All parents and their students that wanted to participate were welcomed. It appears that parents who gave permission for their students to participate were concerned by the difficulties in learning that their students were having and might explain the Minimal Proficiency skew.

Table 1 describes the distribution of our 100 participants in the Proficient, Partially Proficient and Minimally Proficient categories separately for Math and ELA. The six participants in the Proficient Math category included students whose Galileo Math scores were highly proficient and proficient. Partially proficient was 10, and minimally proficient was 84. ELA had 24 in the proficient group, 17 partially proficient, and 59 minimally proficient.

Table 1

Number of Student Participants in Proficient, Partially Proficient and Minimally Proficient Categories

Number of StudentsProficientPartially ProficientMinimally Proficient
Math Experimental 3647
Math Control3437
ELA Experimental121133
ELA Control12626

Changes in Math – Related Functions

Table 2 shows Mean (average) data for participants’ Math and ICARS data before and after CMCRP. In the column labeled Mean, initial and subsequent CMCRP scores are shown for ICARS and Galileo Math scores for each proficiency category. In the column labeled % Change Test 1-2 (b) functional improvements are preceded by the (+) sign, and decreased function by the (–) sign. These are highlighted yellow. Data is segregated according to academic proficiency strata. Proficient is first, followed by partially proficient and minimally proficient.

Look first at ICARS. As you do so, remember that the hypothesis, or theory of this study, was that cerebellum function significantly influences the ability to learn, and that 6 weeks of CMCRP should improve both cerebellum motor coordination and Math and ELA academic proficiency. This hypothesis was based on neuroscience’s assertion that the cerebellum influences higher brain functions (Schmahmann & Sherman, 1998), and Gifford Neurology’s prior research findings. In 2013, G. Kevin Gifford, DC, EDD. developed CMCRP and found that it reversed dementia and restored balance and coordination for ataxic senior adults (Gifford, 2013). On March 13, 2018 Gerald Kevin Gifford, DC, EDD. published a doctoral dissertation through the University of Phoenix that found significant correlation between cerebellum motor coordination and AZMerit test scores for elementary school children (Gifford, 2018, March 13). The research described in this section of Gifford Neurology’s website examined the effects of six weeks of CMCRP on Galileo Math and ELA scores.

It was observed that cerebellum motor coordination improved greatly in all experimental groups and worsened in every control group except the Minimally Proficient Math group where cerebellum motor coordination improved a small amount. Significant improvement was seen in Math and ELA scores for the Minimally Proficient Experimental groups. Improved academic proficiency was not seen for the Proficient, and Partially Proficient Experimental groups. The fact that cerebellum motor coordination improved significantly for these 2 groups while Math and ELA scores did not may be explained by the low number of participants, or other confounding variables.

Tables 2 and 4 highlight the percentage of change for ICARS and Galileo Math and ELA. Improvement is marked with (+) and decreased skill as (-). In the functional change column, data found to be statistically significant (P values at or less than .05 shown in Tables 3 and 5) are highlighted yellow. Tables 3 and 5 analyze effect size and statistical significance. Table 6 summarizes significant findings. A discussion and summary follow Table 6.

Table 2

T-test Paired Samples – Percentage of Change for ICARS and Math

MeanNStd. DeviationStd. Error MeanFunctional Change
Pair 1ICARS 1 Math Proficient Experimental29.0034.1634.163
ICARS 2 Math Prof. Exp.17.0033.0553.055+41.4%
Pair 2ICARS 1 Math Proficient Control12.001a..
ICARS 2 Math Proficient Control23.001a..-91.7
Pair 3Math 1 Proficient Experimental82.96736.60616.6061
Math 2 Proficient Experimental86.70035.13845.1384+4.5
Pair 4Math 1 Proficient Control77.03333.22713.2271
Math 2 Proficient Control82.96734.49094.4909+4.8
Pair 5ICARS 1 Math Partially Prof. Exp.21.5061.6681.668
ICARS 2 Math Partially Prof. Exp.11.0061.6931.693+48.8
Pair 6ICARS 1 Math Partially Prof. Ctrl.23.0033.2153.215
ICARS 2 Math Partially Prof. Ctrl.22.0032.8872.887-4.3
Pair 7Math 1 Partially Prof. Exp.62.58361.06281.0628
Math 2 Partially Prof. Exp.62.23366.05086.0508-0.6
Pair 8Math 1 Partially Prof. Control63.87541.90061.9006
Math 2 Partially Prof. Control70.55042.47672.4767+10.5
Pair 9ICARS 1 Minimally Prof. Exp.28.2246.856.856
ICARS 2 Minimally Prof. Exp.14.1546.584.584+49.9
Pair 10ICARS 1 Minimally Prof. Control25.2421.995.995
ICARS 2 Minimally Prof. Control27.4821.950.950-8.9
Pair 11Math 1 Minimally Prof. Exp.34.238471.67131.6713
Math 2 Minimally Prof. Exp.39.879471.88831.8883+16.5
Pair 12Math 1 Minimally Prof. Control37.786371.59881.5988
Math 2 Minimally Prof. Control41.435372.44782.4478+9.7
a. The correlation and t cannot be computed because the sum of case weights is less than or equal to 1.

Tables 3 and 5 highlight Effect Size and Significance (Sig. 2-tailed). Effect size measures the strength of the effect CMCRP had on cerebellum motor coordination and academic skills for Math and ELA and is calculated by dividing the Mean difference (Mean) by the Standard Deviation. Whether the effect size is positive or negative depends on how tests accumulate points. Galileo Math and ELA scores increase with the number of correct answers. ICARS does just the opposite. Points are added throughout ICARS when cerebellum motor coordination dysfunction is observed. A negative Mean Difference score in a pair of Galileo tests indicates greater academic proficiency, and a positive Mean Difference score for an ICARS pair indicates improvement. An effect size of 0 indicates no effect, while effects sizes (negative or positive) become stronger the further they move away from 0. Effect size values (positive or negative) of .250 indicate a small effect, .500 a medium effect, .800 a large effect, and anything 1.000 and over indicate a very strong effect.

Significance of the difference between initial and post CMCRP test data is calculated using the Mean Difference, degrees of freedom (df) and standard deviation (Std. Deviation). Two tailed significance values at or smaller than .050 indicate support for our hypothesis that improvement of cerebellum motor coordination with CMCRP would improve Galileo test scores. Effect sizes that have support from the significance calculation (Sig. 2-tailed values less than .050) are highlighted yellow in Tables 3 and 5.

Table 3

Paired Sample Test – Math Paired Differences, Highlighting Effect Size and Significance

 

Paired Differences

Paired Variables Paired VariablesMean DifferenceStd. DeviationEffect SizeStd. Error Mean95% Confidence Interval of the Difference (Lower)95% Confidence Interval of the Difference (Upper)tdfSig. (2-tailed)
Pair 1ICARS 1 – 2 Math Prof. Exp.12.0004.0003.0002.3092.06321.9375.1962.035
Pair 2ICARS 1 – 2 Math Prof. Control-11.000AnalysisNotPossible.Only 1participant
Pair 3Math 1 – 2 Prof. Exp.-3.73338.4435-.4424.8749-24.708217.2416-.7662.524
Pair 4Math 1 -2 Prof. Control-5.93332.5697-2.3091.4836-12.3168.4501-3.9992.057
Pair 5ICARS 1 – 2 Math Partially Prof. Exp.10.5003.9372.6671.6076.36814.6326.5335.001
Pair 6ICARS 1 – 2 Math Partially Prof. Control1.0001.0000.577-1.4843.4841.7322.225
Pair 7Math 1 – 2 Partially Pro. Exp..350014.2504.0255.8177-14.604915.3049.0605.954
Pair 8Math 1 – 2 Partially Prof. Control-6.67504.1080-1.6252.0540-13.2118-.1382-3.2503.047
Pair 9ICARS 1 – 2 Math Minimally Prof. Exp.14.0654.8322.911.71212.63015.50019.74145.000
Pair 10ICARS 1 – 2 Math Minimally Prof. Control-2.2385.709-.3921.246-4.837.361-1.79720.088
Pair 11Math 1 – 2 Minimally Prof. Exp.-5.640410.6232-.5311.5495-8.7595-2.5213-3.64046.001
Pair 12Math 1 - 2 Minimally Prof. Control-3.648611.6326-.3141.9124-7.5271.2298-1.90836.064

Table 4

T-test Paired Samples Statistics – Percentage of Change for ICARS and English Language Arts (ELA)

MeanNStd. DeviationStd. Error MeanFunctional Change
Pair 1ICARS 1 ELA Prof. Exp.26.50125.1431.485
ICARS 2 ELA Prof. Exp. 14.67123.7011.068+44.6%
Pair 2ICARS 1 ELA Prof. Control22.20105.4531.724
ICARS 2 ELA Prof. Control25.90105.6661.792-16.7%
Pair 3ELA 1 Prof. Exp.82.675128.95212.5843
ELA 2 Prof. Exp.73.6921212.74853.6802-10.9%
Pair 4ELA 1 Prof. Control78.658128.25522.3831
ELA 2 Proficient Control71.8751217.86825.1581-8.6%
Pair 5ICARS 1 ELA Partially Prof. Exp.27.64115.5911.686
ICARS 2 ELA Partially Prof. Exp.14.27115.3311.607+48.7%
Pair 6ICARS 1 ELA Partially Prof. Control24.5044.1232.062
ICARS 2 ELA Partially Prof. Control28.2542.8721.436-15.3%
Pair 7ELA 1 Partially Prof. Exp.63.964113.37111.0164
ELA 2 Partially Prof. Exp.59.1451111.67573.5204-7.5%
Pair 8ELA 1 Partially Prof. Control62.98361.8713.7639
ELA 2 Partially Prof. Control59.850610.95244.4713-5.0%
Pair 9ICARS 1 Minimally Prof. Exp.27.88326.5491.158
ICARS 2 Minimally Prof. Exp.13.59323.950.698+51.3%
Pair 10ICARS 1 Minimally Prof. Control26.45114.8861.473
ICARS 2 Minimally Proficient Control26.73114.3841.322+1.1%
Pair 11ELA 1 Minimally Proficient Experimental37.0483311.51772.0050
ELA 2 Minimally Proficient Experimental42.1213313.24382.3055+13.7%
Pair 12ELA 1 Minimally Proficient Control43.3622610.65322.0893
ELA 2 Minimally Proficient Control44.6502615.43623.0273+3.0%

a. % Change Test 1-2 is listed as (+) if the change was a functional improvement and (-) if there was a decrease in function.

Table 5

Paired Samples Test – Highlighting Effect Size and Significance

 

Paired Differences

Paired Variables Paired VariablesMean DifferenceStd. DeviationEffect SizeStd. Error Mean95% Confidence Interval of the Difference (Lower)95% Confidence Interval of the Difference (Upper)tdfSig. (2-tailed)
Pair 1ICARS 1 - 2 ELA Prof. Exp.11.8333.9962.961 1.1549.29414.37210.25811.000
Pair 2ICARS 1 – 2 ELA Prof. Ctrl-3.7005.478-.6751.732-7.619.219-2.1369.061
Pair 3ELA 1 – 2 Prof. Exp.8.98337.41371.2122.14024.272913.69384.19811.001
Pair 4ELA 1 – 2 Prof. Ctrl6.783316.9846.3994.9030-4.008217.57481.38311.194
Pair 5ICARS 1 - 2 ELA Partially Prof. Exp.13.3643.5573.7571.07310.97415.75312.45910.000
Pair 6ICARS 1 - 2 ELA Partially Prof. Control-3.7505.852-0.6412.926-13.0625.562-1.2823.290
Pair 7ELA 1 – 2 ELA Partially Prof. Exp.4.818211.8143.4083.5621-3.118812.75511.35310.206
Pair 8ELA 1 – 2 ELA Partially Prof. Control3.133311.8637.2644.8433-9.316815.5835.6475.546
Pair 9ICARS 1 - 2 ELA Minimally Prof. Exp.14.2815.3292.680.94212.36016.20315.15931.000
Pair 10ICARS 1 – 2 ELA Minimally Prof. Control-.2735.623-.0491.695-4.0503.505-.16110.875
Pair 11ELA 1 - 2 Minimally Prof. Exp.-5.07278.0669-.6291.4043-7.9331-2.2123-3.61232.001
Pair 12ELA 1 - 2 Minimally Prof. Control-1.288513.1154-.098 2.5721-6.58594.0090-.50125.621

Discussion

Table 6 lists significant research findings. Let’s look first at the Galileo ELA 1-2 Proficient Experimental group (highlighted pink). It showed a sizable negative change in ELA skills. Improvement in cerebellum motor coordination skills for that group was 44.6% and should have resulted in significant ELA improvement. Why did ELA skills decrease in the Proficient and Partially Proficient groups? That can only be determined with further research. It could have been a testing anomaly, such as students that did not finish the test, or didn’t try, or other unknown variables. What did show significant improvement was cerebellum motor coordination for all experimental groups and improvement in academic skills for the Minimally Proficient Galileo Math and ELA groups.

Table 6

Summary of Significant Results – Calculated Separately for Math and ELA Groups.

Groups - Paired VariablesEffect SizeSig.(2-tailed)Functional Change Percentage
ICARS 1 – 2 Math Proficient Experimental3.000 .035+ 41.4
ICARS 1 – 2 Math Partially Proficient Experimental2.667 .001+ 48.8
ICARS 1 – 2 Math Minimally Proficient Experimental2.911< .000+ 49.9
Galileo Math 1 – 2 Minimally Proficient Experimental- .531 .001+ 16.5
ICARS 1 – 2 ELA Proficient Experimental2.961< .000+ 44.6
Galileo ELA 1-2 Proficient Experimental1.212 .001- 10.9
ICARS 1 – 2 ELA Partially Proficient Experimental3.757< .000+ 48.7
ICARS 1 – 2 ELA Minimally Proficient Experimental2.680< .000+ 51.3
Galileo ELA 1 – 2 Minimally Proficient Experimental-.629 .001+ 13.7

When assessing Paired Differences, or the difference between initial and subsequent test scores, the subsequent test value is subtracted from the initial test. Depending on how tests are designed this calculation can result in a positive or negative value. Functional Change Percentage values are positive if students’ skills improved.

Summary

This research study examined the effects of a short-term exposure of students to CMCRP on cerebellum motor coordination and Galileo Mathematics and English language arts skills. What was found were profound improvements to cerebellum motor coordination for the experimental group and worsening of cerebellum motor coordination for the control group. Also seen, were significant improvements in Mathematics and ELA skills in the Minimally Proficient Math and ELA groups. Gifford Neurology’s research has shown that, when patients or research participants participate with proper effort in following therapy protocol, cerebellum motor coordination and cognition improve. There are rare cases when minimal or no improvement occurs, and may be explained by conflicting health conditions, psychological issues, medication side effects and other confounding variables.

The very strong effects of CMCRP on cerebellum motor coordination are highly significant and indicate that if CMCRP was engaged in multiple times per week over a long period of time, cerebellum function would improve and with it students who struggle might actualize academic proficiency.

Research findings support the hypothesis and encourage additional research. Future research should involve larger numbers of students in every academic proficiency category and should screen for confounding variables, which was not done in this study. Confounding variables screening was not done for this study because Dr. Gifford wanted to see if improvement in cerebellum function would overcome all conflicting variables. This was observed in the minimally proficient groups but not in the partially proficient and proficient groups. The stark difference between the groups was the number of participants, and probably the cause of failure to observe significant improvement of academic function in the proficient and partially proficient groups. Future research is planned.

G. Kevin Gifford, DC, EDD.

Academic Proficiency and Cerebellum Motor Coordination Rehabilitation 2018

In 2017 and 2018, one hundred students participated in this controlled, experimental research study. These included students from two charter schools in the Phoenix, Arizona area and two rural elementary schools in Gila County, Arizona. All students were in 5th grade, except those from a charter school in Phoenix, Arizona. The Phoenix school included students from 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th grades. The goal of this study was to examine the effects of Dr. Kevin Gifford’s Cerebellum Motor Coordination Rehabilitation Program (CMCRP) on academic proficiency and cerebellum motor coordination. This study’s hypothesis stated that cerebellum motor coordination and academic proficiency in Math and English Language Arts (ELA) are related, and proffered that CMCRP would significantly influence academic proficiency.

Study participants were divided into two groups – experimental and control. Experimental group students participated in CMCRP three times per week for 30 minutes with a total of 18 sessions. Control group participants participated in regular physical education classes and not CMCRP. Students were tested by school personnel with Galileo in November 2017 and again after 6 weeks of CMCRP near the end of February 2018. The International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS; Trouillas et al., 1997) measured cerebellum motor coordination and was administered to all participants before and after CMCRP.

Understanding what the Galileo test is, and what it tests, is vital to understanding results from this study. Galileo tests expected grade-level academic proficiency. Grade-level proficiency indicates that students can perform ELA (reading and writing), and Mathematics tasks at their current grade-level as dictated by State and Federal curricula. Galileo has four categories of proficiency: a) highly proficient, b) proficient, c) partially proficient, and d) minimally proficient. Partial and Minimal proficiency scores indicate that students are not proficient at their current grade-level, while Proficient and Highly Proficient indicate at or above grade-level proficiency. This analysis has grouped the highly proficient and proficient students into one Proficient group because these students were at or above proficient standards and because the number of students in the highly proficient and proficient groups was too small for meaningful statistical analysis.

In statistical research, confidence in the data requires a large enough number of participants in all research categories. Statistical research reports from the Federal and Arizona State Departments of Education indicated that our 100-participant research group should have provided adequate participants in all proficiency groups – if our participant sample had a normal proficiency distribution. Our sample, however, was strongly skewed to the Minimally Proficient category for both Math and ELA. Participation invitation letters were sent to all parents of 5th grade students in the four participating schools. All parents and their students that wanted to participate were welcomed. It appears that parents who gave permission for their students to participate were concerned by the difficulties in learning that their students were having and might explain the Minimal Proficiency skew.

Table 1 describes the distribution of our 100 participants in the Proficient, Partially Proficient and Minimally Proficient categories separately for Math and ELA. The six participants in the Proficient Math category included students whose Galileo Math scores were highly proficient and proficient. Partially proficient was 10, and minimally proficient was 84. ELA had 24 in the proficient group, 17 partially proficient, and 59 minimally proficient.

Table 1

Number of Student Participants in Proficient, Partially Proficient and Minimally Proficient Categories

Number of StudentsProficientPartially ProficientMinimally Proficient
Math Experimental 3647
Math Control3437
ELA Experimental121133
ELA Control12626

Changes in Math – Related Functions

Table 2 shows Mean (average) data for participants’ Math and ICARS data before and after CMCRP. In the column labeled Mean, initial and subsequent CMCRP scores are shown for ICARS and Galileo Math scores for each proficiency category. In the column labeled % Change Test 1-2 (b) functional improvements are preceded by the (+) sign, and decreased function by the (–) sign. These are highlighted yellow. Data is segregated according to academic proficiency strata. Proficient is first, followed by partially proficient and minimally proficient.

Look first at ICARS. As you do so, remember that the hypothesis, or theory of this study, was that cerebellum function significantly influences the ability to learn, and that 6 weeks of CMCRP should improve both cerebellum motor coordination and Math and ELA academic proficiency. This hypothesis was based on neuroscience’s assertion that the cerebellum influences higher brain functions (Schmahmann & Sherman, 1998), and Gifford Neurology’s prior research findings. In 2013, G. Kevin Gifford, DC, EDD. developed CMCRP and found that it reversed dementia and restored balance and coordination for ataxic senior adults (Gifford, 2013). On March 13, 2018 Gerald Kevin Gifford, DC, EDD. published a doctoral dissertation through the University of Phoenix that found significant correlation between cerebellum motor coordination and AZMerit test scores for elementary school children (Gifford, 2018, March 13). The research described in this section of Gifford Neurology’s website examined the effects of six weeks of CMCRP on Galileo Math and ELA scores.

It was observed that cerebellum motor coordination improved greatly in all experimental groups and worsened in every control group except the Minimally Proficient Math group where cerebellum motor coordination improved a small amount. Significant improvement was seen in Math and ELA scores for the Minimally Proficient Experimental groups. Improved academic proficiency was not seen for the Proficient, and Partially Proficient Experimental groups. The fact that cerebellum motor coordination improved significantly for these 2 groups while Math and ELA scores did not may be explained by the low number of participants, or other confounding variables.

Tables 2 and 4 highlight the percentage of change for ICARS and Galileo Math and ELA. Improvement is marked with (+) and decreased skill as (-). In the functional change column, data found to be statistically significant (P values at or less than .05 shown in Tables 3 and 5) are highlighted yellow. Tables 3 and 5 analyze effect size and statistical significance. Table 6 summarizes significant findings. A discussion and summary follow Table 6.

Table 2

T-test Paired Samples – Percentage of Change for ICARS and Math

MeanNStd. DeviationStd. Error MeanFunctional Change
Pair 1ICARS 1 Math Proficient Experimental 29.0034.1634.163
ICARS 2 Math Prof. Exp.17.0033.0553.055+41.4%
Pair 2ICARS 1 Math Proficient Control12.001a..
ICARS 2 Math Proficient Control23.001a..-91.7
Pair 3Math 1 Proficient Experimental82.96736.60616.6061
Math 2 Proficient Experimental86.70035.13845.1384+4.5
Pair 4Math 1 Proficient Control77.03333.22713.2271
Math 2 Proficient Control82.96734.49094.4909+4.8
Pair 5ICARS 1 Math Partially Prof. Exp.21.5061.6681.668
ICARS 2 Math Partially Prof. Exp.11.0061.6931.693+48.8
Pair 6ICARS 1 Math Partially Prof. Ctrl.23.0033.2153.215
ICARS 2 Math Partially Prof. Ctrl.22.0032.8872.887-4.3
Pair 7Math 1 Partially Prof. Exp.62.58361.06281.0628
Math 2 Partially Prof. Exp.62.23366.05086.0508-0.6
Pair 8Math 1 Partially Prof. Control63.87541.90061.9006
Math 2 Partially Prof. Control70.55042.47672.4767+10.5
Pair 9ICARS 1 Minimally Prof. Exp.28.2246.856.856
ICARS 2 Minimally Prof. Exp.14.1546.584.584+49.9
Pair 10ICARS 1 Minimally Prof. Control25.2421.995.995
ICARS 2 Minimally Prof. Control27.4821.950.950-8.9
Pair 11Math 1 Minimally Prof. Exp.34.238471.67131.6713
Math 2 Minimally Prof. Exp.39.879471.88831.8883+16.5
Pair 12Math 1 Minimally Prof. Control37.786371.59881.5988
Pair 12Math 2 Minimally Prof. Control41.435372.44782.4478+9.7
The correlation and t cannot be computed because the sum of case weights is less than or equal to 1.

Tables 3 and 5 highlight Effect Size and Significance (Sig. 2-tailed). Effect size measures the strength of the effect CMCRP had on cerebellum motor coordination and academic skills for Math and ELA and is calculated by dividing the Mean difference (Mean) by the Standard Deviation. Whether the effect size is positive or negative depends on how tests accumulate points. Galileo Math and ELA scores increase with the number of correct answers. ICARS does just the opposite. Points are added throughout ICARS when cerebellum motor coordination dysfunction is observed. A negative Mean Difference score in a pair of Galileo tests indicates greater academic proficiency, and a positive Mean Difference score for an ICARS pair indicates improvement. An effect size of 0 indicates no effect, while effects sizes (negative or positive) become stronger the further they move away from 0. Effect size values (positive or negative) of .250 indicate a small effect, .500 a medium effect, .800 a large effect, and anything 1.000 and over indicate a very strong effect.

Significance of the difference between initial and post CMCRP test data is calculated using the Mean Difference, degrees of freedom (df) and standard deviation (Std. Deviation). Two tailed significance values at or smaller than .050 indicate support for our hypothesis that improvement of cerebellum motor coordination with CMCRP would improve Galileo test scores. Effect sizes that have support from the significance calculation are highlighted yellow in Tables 3 and 5.

Table 3

Paired Sample Test – Math Paired Differences, Highlighting Effect Size and Significance

 

Paired Differences

Paired Variables Paired VariablesMean DifferenceStd. DeviationEffect SizeStd. Error Mean95% Confidence Interval of the Difference (Lower)95% Confidence Interval of the Difference (Upper)TdfSig. (2-tailed)
Pair 1ICARS 1 – 2 Math Prof. Exp.12.0004.0003.0002.3092.06321.9375.1962.035
Pair 2ICARS 1 – 2 Math Prof. Control-11.000AnalysisNotPossible.Only 1participant
Pair 3Math 1 – 2 Prof. Exp.-3.73338.4435-.4424.8749-24.708217.2416-.7662.524
Pair 4Math 1 -2 Prof. Control-5.93332.5697-2.3091.4836-12.3168.4501-3.9992.057
Pair 5ICARS 1 – 2 Math Partially Prof. Exp.10.5003.9372.6671.6076.36814.6326.5335.001
Pair 6ICARS 1 – 2 Math Partially Prof. Control1.0001.0000.577-1.4843.4841.7322.225
Pair 7Math 1 – 2 Partially Pro. Exp..350014.2504.0255.8177-14.604915.3049.0605.954
Pair 8Math 1 – 2 Partially Prof. Control-6.67504.1080-1.6252.0540-13.2118-.1382-3.2503.047
Pair 9ICARS 1 – 2 Math Minimally Prof. Exp.14.0654.8322.911.71212.63015.50019.74145.000
Pair 10ICARS 1 – 2 Math Minimally Prof. Control-2.2385.709-.3921.246-4.837.361-1.79720.088
Pair 11Math 1 – 2 Minimally Prof. Exp.-5.640410.6232-.5311.5495-8.7595-2.5213-3.64046.001
Pair 12Math 1 - 2 Minimally Prof. Control-3.648611.6326-.3141.9124-7.5271.2298-1.90836.064

Table 4

T-test Paired Samples Statistics – Percentage of Change for ICARS and English Language Arts (ELA)

MeanNStd. DeviationStd. Error MeanFunctional Change
Pair 1ICARS 1 ELA Prof. Exp.26.50125.1431.485
ICARS 2 ELA Prof. Exp. 14.67123.7011.068+44.6%
Pair 2ICARS 1 ELA Prof. Control22.20105.4531.724
ICARS 2 ELA Prof. Control25.90105.6661.792-16.7%
Pair 3ELA 1 Prof. Exp.82.675128.95212.5843
ELA 2 Prof. Exp.73.6921212.74853.6802-10.9%
Pair 4ELA 1 Prof. Control78.658128.25522.3831
ELA 2 Proficient Control71.8751217.86825.1581-8.6%
Pair 5ICARS 1 ELA Partially Prof. Exp.27.64115.5911.686
ICARS 2 ELA Partially Prof. Exp.14.27115.3311.607+48.7%
Pair 6ICARS 1 ELA Partially Prof. Control24.5044.1232.062
ICARS 2 ELA Partially Prof. Control28.2542.8721.436-15.3%
Pair 7ELA 1 Partially Prof. Exp.63.964113.37111.0164
ELA 2 Partially Prof. Exp.59.1451111.67573.5204-7.5%
Pair 8ELA 1 Partially Prof. Control62.98361.8713.7639
ELA 2 Partially Prof. Control59.850610.95244.4713-5.0%
Pair 9ICARS 1 Minimally Prof. Exp.27.88326.5491.158
ICARS 2 Minimally Prof. Exp.13.59323.950.698+51.3%
Pair 10ICARS 1 Minimally Prof. Control26.45114.8861.473
ICARS 2 Minimally Proficient Control26.73114.3841.322+1.1%
Pair 11ELA 1 Minimally Proficient Experimental37.0483311.51772.0050
ELA 2 Minimally Proficient Experimental42.1213313.24382.3055+13.7%
Pair 12ELA 1 Minimally Proficient Control43.3622610.65322.0893
ELA 2 Minimally Proficient Control44.6502615.43623.0273+3.0%

b. % Change Test 1-2 is listed as (+) if the change was a functional improvement and (-) if there was a decrease in function.

Table 5

Paired Samples Test – Highlighting Effect Size and Significance

 

Paired Differences

Paired Variables Paired VariablesMean DifferenceStd. DeviationEffect SizeStd. Error Mean95% Confidence Interval of the Difference (Lower)95% Confidence Interval of the Difference (Upper)tdfSig. (2-tailed)
Pair 1ICARS 1 - 2 ELA Prof. Exp.11.8333.9962.9611.1549.29414.37210.25811.000
Pair 2ICARS 1 – 2 ELA Prof. Ctrl-3.7005.478-.6751.732-7.619.219-2.1369.061
Pair 3ELA 1 – 2 Prof. Exp.8.98337.41371.2122.14024.272913.69384.19811.001
Pair 4ELA 1 – 2 Prof. Ctrl6.783316.9846.3994.9030-4.008217.57481.38311.194
Pair 5ICARS 1 - 2 ELA Partially Prof. Exp.13.3643.5573.7571.07310.97415.75312.45910.000
Pair 6ICARS 1 - 2 ELA Partially Prof. Control-3.7505.852-0.6412.926-13.0625.562-1.2823.290
Pair 7ELA 1 – 2 ELA Partially Prof. Exp.4.818211.8143.4083.5621-3.118812.75511.35310.206
Pair 8ELA 1 – 2 ELA Partially Prof. Control3.133311.8637.2644.8433-9.316815.5835.6475.546
Pair 9ICARS 1 - 2 ELA Minimally Prof. Exp.14.2815.3292.680.94212.36016.20315.15931.000
Pair 10ICARS 1 – 2 ELA Minimally Prof. Control-.2735.623-.0491.695-4.0503.505-.16110.875
Pair 11ELA 1 - 2 Minimally Prof. Exp.-5.07278.0669-.6291.4043-7.9331-2.2123-3.61232.001
Pair 12ELA 1 - 2 Minimally Prof. Control-1.288513.1154-.098 2.5721-6.58594.0090-.50125.621

Discussion

Table 6 lists significant research findings. Let’s look first at the Galileo ELA 1-2 Proficient Experimental group (highlighted pink). It showed a sizable negative change in ELA skills. Improvement in cerebellum motor coordination skills for that group was 44.6% and should have resulted in significant ELA improvement. Why did ELA skills decrease in the Proficient and Partially Proficient groups? That can only be determined with further research. It could have been a testing anomaly, such as students that did not finish the test, or didn’t try, or other unknown variables. What did show significant improvement was cerebellum motor coordination for all experimental groups and improvement in academic skills for the Minimally Proficient Galileo Math and ELA groups.

Table 6

Summary of Significant Results – Calculated Separately for Math and ELA Groups.

Groups - Paired VariablesEffect SizeSig.(2-tailed)Functional Change Percentage
ICARS 1 – 2 Math Proficient Experimental3.000 .035+ 41.4
ICARS 1 – 2 Math Partially Proficient Experimental2.667 .001+ 48.8
ICARS 1 – 2 Math Minimally Proficient Experimental2.911< .000+ 49.9
Galileo Math 1 – 2 Minimally Proficient Experimental- .531 .001+ 16.5
ICARS 1 – 2 ELA Proficient Experimental2.961< .000+ 44.6
Galileo ELA 1-2 Proficient Experimental1.212 .001- 10.9
ICARS 1 – 2 ELA Partially Proficient Experimental3.757< .000+ 48.7
ICARS 1 – 2 ELA Minimally Proficient Experimental2.680< .000+ 51.3
Galileo ELA 1 – 2 Minimally Proficient Experimental-.629 .001+ 13.7

When assessing Paired Differences, or the difference between initial and subsequent test scores, the subsequent test value is subtracted from the initial test. Depending on how tests are designed this calculation can result in a positive or negative value. Functional Change Percentage values are positive if students’ skills improved.

Summary

This research study examined the effects of a short-term exposure of students to CMCRP on cerebellum motor coordination and Galileo Mathematics and English language arts skills. What was found were profound improvements to cerebellum motor coordination for the experimental group and worsening of cerebellum motor coordination for the control group. Also seen, were significant improvements in Mathematics and ELA skills in the Minimally Proficient Math and ELA groups. Gifford Neurology’s research has shown that, when patients or research participants participate with proper effort in following therapy protocol, cerebellum motor coordination and cognition improve. There are rare cases when minimal or no improvement occurs, and may be explained by conflicting health conditions, psychological issues, medication side effects and other confounding variables.

The very strong effects of CMCRP on cerebellum motor coordination are highly significant, and indicate that if CMCRP was engaged in multiple times per week over a long period of time, cerebellum function would improve and with it students who struggle might actualize academic excellence.

Research findings support the hypothesis and encourage additional research. Future research should involve larger numbers of students in every academic proficiency category and should screen for confounding variables, which was not done in this study. Confounding variables screening was not done for this study because Dr. Gifford wanted to see if improvement in cerebellum function would overcome all conflicting variables. This was observed in the minimally proficient groups but not in the partially proficient and proficient groups. The stark difference between the groups was the number of participants, and probably the cause of failure to observe significant improvement of academic function in the proficient and partially proficient groups. Future research is planned.

G. Kevin Gifford, DC, EDD.

Human Intelligence and Cerebellum Motor Coordination Rehabilitation 2018-2020

Human Intelligence and Cerebellum Motor Coordination Rehabilitation 2018-2020

Human intelligence is a highly discussed topic in neuroscience and psychology.  What it is, how it is created, how it works, and how different developmental and life-based stressors affect intelligence are not entirely known.  Many theories fill a multitude of journals with attempts to define and describe even the basic tenants of the idea of intelligence.  From before the time of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, mankind queried aspects of intelligence.  Some philosophers postulated that intelligence was separate from physical brain function and existed in the realm of spirit, or a person’s essence.  Over the past 1,500 years neuroscience has found many areas of the brain that do many of the things that we do when we think and problem-solve, but even with these discoveries, general intelligence, and our capacity to create or change it, are still mysterious to us.

Modern neuroscience describes human intelligence as the ability to interact with our environment and problem-solve adequately to attain our goals.  This thinking and goal-related problem-solving process involves the entire brain and requires coordination of a multitude of independent neurological functions.  Quantification of individual intelligence in this research study is done by the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (SBI).  SBI measures 5 subsets of intelligence with both verbal and nonverbal methods to create verbal and nonverbal measurements of intelligence.  SBI full scale intelligence is derived from verbal and nonverbal intelligence scores.

The following is a summary of the five SBI subsets of intelligence, what they are and how SBI tests for these skills.  The 5 subsets of intelligence used by the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales are:

  1. Fluid Reasoning
  2. Knowledge
  3. Quantitative Reasoning
  4. Visual Spatial
  5. Working Memory

Fluid Reasoning

Fluid reasoning is the ability to discern sensory stimuli, whether through vision, hearing, smell, taste or touch, and make sense of it.  SBI examines nonverbal fluid reasoning through analysis of images that indicate a logical pattern.  Verbal Fluid Reasoning is assessed through understanding of language, including the meaning of sentences and the construction of written language.  Accomplishing these tasks involves coordinated use of many parts of our nervous system.

Knowledge

Knowledge is a byproduct of experience, and involves not only sensory events, but how we respond to them and whether our reactions are successful.  Information comes to us through our sensory system, we interpret it, compare it to our experiential memory bank, and decide how to use it.  The successes or failures of these integrated experiences create our knowledge base.  SBI nonverbal assessment of knowledge uses differentiation between pictures, physical activities, and understanding of absurdities in drawings or pictures.  Verbal knowledge measures knowledge of language.

Quantitative Reasoning

Quantitative reasoning (QR) is the ability to use logic and mathematics.  Nonverbal QR assesses the ability to differentiate size and quantity of objects, ability to discern ordered patterns of change, and mathematical constructs such as algebra and analytical thinking.  Verbal QR assesses understanding of sizes and quantities of objects, and mathematical skills.

Visual Spatial

Visual spatial reasoning is the ability to see, perceive, and interact with the world around us.  This is a complex process that uses current vision and memories of what we’ve seen in the past to understand what we’re seeing in the present, and how we should respond.  SBI assesses nonverbal visual spatial skills through understanding of size, shape and placement of objects.  Elementary test levels involve placing objects in an ordered manner within a defined space. Higher levels of skill use blocks to create drawn designs.  Verbal assessment of spatial skills involves physical interaction with objects and placement of them in a particular order.  It also includes assessment of the ability to understand one’s position on the earth, move in an ordered manner, and differentiate how these activities affect one’s relationship to North, South, East, and West.

Working Memory

Working memory is the capacity to solve problems using short-term memory and is an important skill for academic proficiency.  The ability to see or hear data and immediately use it in an ordered manner requires good attention, emotional control, problem solving skills, and ability to strategize memory enhancement.  SBI assesses nonverbal skills at an elementary level through placement of items out of view while the child watches and then having the child find the object.  Tasks become more difficult at higher levels, including the order of how objects are touched and the ability to duplicate that order in a prescribed manner.  Verbal working memory assesses the ability to repeat sentences, and to remember and repeat in order the last word of a set of sentences in the order that the sentences are read aloud.

Research Study Design and Description

Starting in August 2018, Gerald G. Kevin Gifford, DC, EDD. recruited participation in a study that would measure Intelligence (IQ) and the effects of Cerebellum Motor Coordination Rehabilitation on IQ.  The study consisted of an experimental group and  control group ages 6 to 87 years.  The experimental group participated in 30 minutes of CMCRP Monday, Wednesday and Friday each week for sixth months.  This report primarily shows results from the first three months.  A summary report is also given of a small group of participants that completed their sixth month set of examinations – all of whom are in the experimental group.  Each participant was examined before the start of CMCRP and then every 3 months by the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (SBI) and  the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS).  The study continues currently (May 20, 2019) and will conclude in September 2020.

The study’s purpose is to assess the effects of CMCRP on cerebellum motor coordination and Intelligence, and to observe short and long-term effects of participation in CMCRP.  The central hypotheses (Ha-Hb) posit that CMCRP will significantly increase cerebellum motor coordination and human intelligence.  Support for this rationale comes from two previous Gifford Neurology Institute (GNI) controlled, experimental research studies where CMCRP was used as the sole clinical intervention.  These included a senior adult study involving 109 participants with an average age of 87 years and varying degrees of dementia and ataxia (balance and coordination problems).  Three months of CMCRP reversed dementia 13% and improved balance and coordination 25%.  A second study analyzed the effects of CMCRP on academic skill in mathematics and English language arts (ELA) in a group of 100 fifth grade students.  This study used CMCRP as the sole addition to school curricula for 30 minutes every Monday, Wednesday and Friday for 6 weeks.  The experimental group improved their cerebellum motor coordination by more than 40% and experienced an improvement of 16.5% in mathematics and 13.7% in ELA by the lowest academic proficiency group.  The Galileo test was used by participants’ schools to assess mathematics and ELA academic skills.

Table 1 describes initial test scores and scores after 3 months for participants in the experimental and control groups in this study.  All participants were examined by the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale and the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales Fifth Edition.  Participants ranged from 6 to 90 years of age with a mean (average) age of 46.26 years in the experimental group and 13 to 88 in the control group with a mean of 42 years.  Initial ICARS scores (measurements of cerebellum motor coordination) ranged from 14 to 54 and a mean of 31.65 in the experimental group and 18 to 36 and a mean of 26.88 for the control group.  After three months of CMCRP, cerebellum motor coordination improved for the experimental group 32.5%.  The control group did not participate in CMCRP and experienced a 4.2% improvement in cerebellum motor coordination skills.  Full scale IQ (FSIQ) improved 11.3% in the experimental group and 0.6% in the control group.  Understanding ICARS and SBI scoring methods is needed to understand the results.  Lower ICARS scores indicate better cerebellum motor coordination function, and higher SBI scores show higher intelligence.

Table 1

Descriptive statistics for Experimental and Control Groups

NMinimumMaximumMeanFunctional ChangeChange Direction
Up = Better
Down = Worse
Std. Deviation
ICARS #1 Exp Grp31145431.659.562
ICARS #2 Exp Grp27154121.3732.5%Up5.527
ICARS #1 Ctl Grp8183626.886.379
ICARS #2 Ctl Grp8193425.754.2%Up5.994
FSIQ #1 Exp Grp3185125104.7410.463
FSIQ #2 Exp Grp2899132116.5711.3%,/b>Up8.535
FSIQ #1 Ctl Grp896120106.887.954
FSIQ #2 Ctl Grp8102120107.500.6Up5.831

CMCRP improves cerebellum motor coordination and appears to enhance intelligence.  Table 2 shows changes in Nonverbal and Verbal IQ for the experimental and control groups.  Experimental group participants improved 11.1% in Nonverbal and 10.8% in Verbal IQ.  The control group improved 1.3% in Nonverbal and 1.9% in Verbal IQ.

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics for Nonverbal and Verbal IQ Results

NMinimumMaximumMeanFunctional ChangeChange Direction
Up = Better
Down = Worse
Std. Deviation
NVIQ #1 Experimental Group3179118100.9710.294
NVIQ #2 Experimental Group2893126112.1811.1%Up8.555
NVIQ #1 Control Group899121106.387.289
NVIQ #2 Control Group897115105.00-1.3%Down5.503
VIQ #1 Experimental Group3182131108.2611.767
VIQ #2 Experimental Group28105136119.9610.8%Up9.454
VIQ #1 Experimental Group892119107.759.468
VIQ #2 Experimental Group8100124109.751.9%Up8.464

Nonverbal and Verbal IQ scores are calculated from 5 subsets of intelligence. These are:

  1. Fluid Reasoning (FR)
  2. Knowledge (KN)
  3. Quantitative Reasoning (QR)
  4. Visual Spatial Reasoning (VS)
  5. Working Memory (WM)

Each of these IQ subsets measure specific cognitive functions that are interrelated.  The composite of scores from all 5 subsets – measured by nonverbal and verbal methods are used to determine Full Scale IQ.  Table 3 lists SBI IQ subset scores at the start of the study and after three months for the experimental and control groups.  Table 4 summarizes group data, shows the percent of change and the difference in IQ performance between the experimental and control groups.

Table 3

Descriptive Statistics for Subsets of Intelligence and CMCRP Influence – Grouped Experimental and Control

NMinimumMaximumMeanStd. Deviation
Fluid Reasoning #1 Experimental Group3182135102.9413.389
Fluid Reasoning #2 Experimental Group2891141115.8912.588
Knowledge #1 Experimental Group3183128105.8112.515
Knowledge #2 Experimental Group2897131116.398.698
Quantitative Reasoning #1 Experimental Group3178119101.559.507
Quantitative Reasoning #2 Experimental Group2897127109.867.773
Visual Spatial Reasoning #1 Experimental Group3185135103.2912.418
Visual Spatial Reasoning #2 Experimental Group2891132115.3610.130
Working Memory #1 Experimental Group3183129108.2611.773
Working Memory #2 Experimental Group28100138115.4610.196
Fluid Reasoning #1 Control Group894121106.3810.446
Fluid Reasoning #2 Control Group885123 104.0011.427
Knowledge #1 Control Group886120105.2510.700
Knowledge #2 Control Group8103123111.007.801
Quantitative Reasoning #1 Control Group894119102.758.413
Quantitative Reasoning #2 Control Group897116103.386.255
Visual Spatial Reasoning #1 Control Group8103120111.255.874
Visual Spatial Reasoning #2 Control Group897114106.625.975
Working Memory #1 Control Group891135106.2513.625
Working Memory #2 Control Group897123108.639.410

Table 4

Analysis of Change for Stanford-Binet IQ Subsets:  Experimental compared to Control Groups

IQ Subset Study GroupPre-CMCRP MeanPost 3-months CMCRP Mean% of ChangeDifference Experimental vs Control
Fluid ReasoningExperimental 102.94115.8912.6%14.8%
Fluid ReasoningControl106.38104.00-2.2%
KnowledgeExperimental108.81116.3910% 4.5%
KnowledgeControl105.25111.005.5%
Quantitative ReasoningExperimental101.55109.868.2%7.6%
Quantitative ReasoningControl102.78103.380.6%
Visual Spatial ReasoningExperimental 103.29115.3611.7%15.9%
Visual Spatial ReasoningControl111.25106.62-4.2%
Working MemoryExperimental108.26115.466.7%4.5%
Working MemoryControl106.25108.632.2%

Descriptive Statistics Summary

The cerebellum motor coordination rehabilitation program effectuated a significant improvement in all areas of the Stanford Binet Intelligence Scales and cerebellum motor coordination.  The experimental group’s Full Scale, Nonverbal, and Verbal IQ increases were stronger than the control group.  The five Subsets of Intelligence showed similar improvements in the experimental group with the largest increases in function occurring in Visual Spatial Reasoning and Fluid Reasoning, and the smallest increases in change occurring in Knowledge and Working Memory.  Control group IQ and cerebellum motor coordination changes were small.

Paired Samples Analysis

Paired sample analysis was done with a T-test.  This test examines the difference in mean (average) between paired data and gives a significance value called Sig. (2-tailed).  The pairs of data in this study are ICARS, FSIQ, NVIQ, VIQ, and five IQ subsets before the start of CMRP and after 3 months.  If the significance value (shown on the right of Table 5) is .050 or smaller, the hypothesis related to that value is supported.  The hypotheses tested are:

H0:  Participation in GNI’s cerebellum motor coordination rehabilitation program for 30 minutes three times per week will not improve cerebellum motor coordination as measured by the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale.

H1:  Participation in GNI’s cerebellum motor coordination rehabilitation program for 30 minutes three times per week will not improve intelligence as measured by the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales Fifth Edition.

Ha:  Participation in GNI’s cerebellum motor coordination rehabilitation program for 30 minutes three times per week will improve cerebellum motor coordination as measured by the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scales.

Hb:  Participation in GNI’s cerebellum motor coordination rehabilitation program for 30 minutes three times per week will improve human intelligence as measured by the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales Fifth Edition.

Being a controlled study, this research gives us the opportunity to see if addition of CMCRP on a regular basis changes IQ and cerebellum motor coordination.  The size of difference between functional changes for the experimental and control groups helps us understand four things:

  1. Did CMCRP significantly improve cerebellum motor coordination?
  2. Did CMCRP significantly improve IQ?
  3. Did cerebellum motor coordination improve without CMCRP?
  4. Does repeated exposure to the SBI test significantly improve IQ scores?

Three values are highlighted in Table 5.  Starting from the left side of the table, they are: a) the direction of functional change, b) effect size, and c) significance.  The direction of functional change shows Up and Down descriptors.  Up means improvement in function, and down indicates worse function.  Effect sizes describe the effects of CMCRP on cerebellum motor coordination and IQ, and the influence of repetitive administration of SBI on IQ.  Highlighted in yellow are functional change, effect size, and significance values at or smaller than .05.

Effect sizes are interpreted by their distance from zero (0).  A 0 effect size indicates that the therapy (CMCRP) had no influence.  Effects sizes are considered small at .250, medium at .500, large at .800, and very large at and above 1.000.  The experimental group experienced functional improvement in cerebellum motor coordination and every Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales category.  Experimental group effect sizes were very strong for ICARS (cerebellum motor coordination), Full Scale IQ, Non-Verbal IQ, Verbal IQ, Fluid Reasoning and Knowledge, strong effects for Quantitative and Visual Spatial Reasoning, and medium for Working Memory.  Effect sizes for the control group were small for ICARS, very small for FSIQ, small for NVIQ, small to medium for VIQ, very small for Fluid Reasoning, very large for Knowledge, very small for Quantitative Reasoning, large for Visual Spatial Reasoning, and small for Working Memory.

Table 5

Paired Samples Test, Effect Size and Significance

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

MeanChange in FunctionStd. DeviationEffect SizeStd. Error Mean95% Confidence Interval of the Difference (Lower)95% Confidence Interval of the Difference (Upper)tdfSig. (2-tailed)
Pair 1ICARS 1 – 2 Experimental Group9.000Up5.7511.5651.1076.72511.2758.13126.000
Pair 2ICARS 1 – 2 Control Group 1.125Down2.900.3881.025-1.3003.5501.0977.309
Pair 3Full Scale IQ 1 – 2 Experimental Group -10.607Up7.182-1.4771.357-13.392-7.822-7.81527.000
Pair 4Full Scale IQ 1 – 2 Control Group -.625Up3.623-.1731.281-3.6542.404-.4887.640
Pair 5Non-Verbal IQ 1 – 2 Experimental Group -10.107Up7.661-1.3191.448-13.078-7.136-6.98127.000
Pair 6Non-Verbal IQ 1 – 2 Control Group 1.375Down6.278.2192.220-3.8736.623.6197.555
Pair 7Verbal IQ 1 – 2 Experimental Group -10.393Up10.351-1.0041.956-14.406-6.379-5.31327.000
Pair 8Verbal IQ 1 – 2 Control Group -2.000Up4.957-.4031.753-6.1442.144-1.1417.291
Pair 9Fluid Reasoning 1 – 2 Experimental Group -12.214Up12.804-.9542.420-17.179-7.249-5.04827.000
Pair 10Fluid Reasoning 1 – 2 Control Group 2.375Down12.340.1924.363-7.94112.691.5447.603
Pair 11Knowledge 1 – 2 Experimental Group -9.250Up7.372-1.2551.393-12.108-6.392-6.640.27.000
Pair 12Knowledge 1 – 2 Control Group -5.750Up5.874-.9792.077-10.661-.839-2.7697.028
Pair 13Quantitative Reasoning 1 – 2 Experimental Group -7.643Up8.978-.8511.697-11.124-4.161-4.50427.000
Pair 14Quantitative Reasoning 1 – 2 Control Group -.625Up7.782-.0802.751-7.1315.881-.2277.827
Pair 15Visual Spatial 1 – 2 Experimental Group -10.857Up12.581-.8632.378-15.735-5.979-4.56727.000
Pair 16Visual Spatial 1 – 2 Control Group 4.625Down5.502.8411.945.0269.2242.3787.049
Pair 17Working Memory 1 – 2 Experimental Group -5.857Up10.526-.5561.989-9.939-1.776-2.94427.007
Pair 18Working Memory 1 – 2 Control Group -2.375Up9.942-.2393.515-10.6875.937-.6767.521

Six Months of CMCRP

As of May 20, 2019, seven participants had completed six months of CMCRP and had been examined a third time with the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (SBI) and the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS).  All seven of these participants are in the experimental group.  The data from these exams is presented below.  More data will be entered in GNI’s website as it becomes available.

Table 6 lists data for the range of scores by Minimum, Maximum, Mean, and Standard Deviation.  The minimum FSIQ scores were 90 at initial examination, 106 at three months, and 111 at six months.  The maximum beginning FSIQ scores were 120 at initial examination, 128 at three months, and 132 at six months.  Mean FSIQ scores were 105.71 at initial examination, 116.86 at three months, and 122.14 at six months.  Cerebellum motor coordination improved from a minimum initial ICARS score of 21, to 16 at three months and 13 at six months (lower ICARS scores = improved cerebellum motor coordination).  Maximum ICARS scores changed from 30 at the beginning of this study to 22 at three months and 20 at six months.  Participation in CMCRP improved FSIQ 10.5% in three months and 15.5% in six months, and cerebellum motor coordination improved 28.4% in three months and 36.1% at six months.

Table 6

Descriptive Statistics for Participants that Completed 6 Months of CMCRP

NMinimumMaximumMeanFunction ChangeStd. Deviation
Full Scale IQ Test 1790120105.719.639
Full Scale IQ Test 27106128116.86+10.5%8.174
Full Scale IQ Test 37111132122.14+15.5%8.315
ICARS Test 17213026.143.237
ICARS Test 27162218.71+28.4%2.430
ICARS Test 37132016.71+36.1%2.563

Table 7 highlights difference between mean values for the initial exam and either the 3-month or 6-month exams for FSIQ and ICARS.  Mean is calculated by subtracting the subsequent test score from the initial score.  When FSIQ scores go up, the calculation gives a negative value.  Hence a negative Mean value for an increase in intelligence.  ICARS scores cerebellum motor coordination just the opposite of SBI.  Points are added in the ICARS test according to the amount of cerebellum motor coordination dysfunction.  The worse balance and coordination are the higher the score.  Cerebellum motor coordination improvement results in a lower score and a Mean difference that is a positive number.

Pair 1 is the initial minus the 3rd month FSIQ scores.  It shows an -11.143 point mean difference, an effect size of -1.579, and significance of .006.  Pair 2 is the initial minus the 6th month FSIQ scores and shows a -16.429 mean difference, an effect size of -1.617, and significance of .005.  Pairs 3 and 4 assess changes in ICARS.  Pair 3 shows a mean difference of 7.429, effect size of 1.598, and significance of .006.  Pair 4 shows mean difference at 9.429, effect size at 2.386, and significance at .001.  This data shows that CMCRP exerted powerful influence on intelligence and cerebellum motor coordination in 3 months and even greater effects after 6 months.

Table 7

Paired Samples Data Analysis at Six Months of CMCRP

Paired Differences

MeanStd. DeviationEffect SizeStd. Error Mean95% Confidence Interval of the Difference (Lower)95% Confidence Interval of the Difference (Upper)tdfSig. (2-tailed)
Pair 1Full Scale IQ 1 – 2 -11.1437.058-1.5792.668-17.670-4.616-4.1776.006
Pair 2Full Scale IQ 1 – 3 -16.42910.163-1.6173.841-25.828-7.029-4.2776.005
Pair 3ICARS 1 – 27.4294.6501.5981.7573.12811.7294.2276.006
Pair 4ICARS 1 – 3 9.4293.9522.3861.4945.77313.0846.3126.001

Understanding IQ Scores

GNI uses the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales to assess Intelligence.  SBI is accepted by cognitive neuroscience, psychology, and education institutions throughout the world as a gold standard IQ test.  Understanding SBI IQ categories helps us appreciate the effects of CMCRP on this study’s experimental group.  Look at the various tables in this research summary and see the large changes in IQ and cerebellum motor coordination.  Three months of CMCRP helped a large majority of experimental group participants improve a full IQ category above where they started, and a full 6 months of CMCRP significantly increase the results.  This includes participants that improved from initial FSIQ scores of 98 to 132, 105 to 121, 120 to 129, 90 to 114 and many other examples.  The common observation has been that when CMCRP is done properly intelligence and cerebellum motor coordination improve significantly.

Table 8

Stanford-Binet IQ Categories and Range of Scores

IQ CategoryRange of ScoresIQ CategoryRange of Scores
Highest IQ Range145 – 160Low Average80 – 89
Gifted or Advanced130 – 144Borderline Impairment70 – 79
Shows Superiority120 – 129Mildly Impaired55 – 69
High Average110 – 119Moderately Impaired40 – 54
Average90 – 109

Summary

This research study sought to quantify the effects of CMCRP on human intelligence and cerebellum motor coordination.  Past GNI research showed significant positive effects from using the Cerebellum Motor Coordination Rehabilitation Program for patients with balance and coordination disorders, dementia, and learning problems.  All willing participants were welcomed – including senior adults with dementia, patients who had suffered strokes, and patients with heart disease, diabetes, chronic fatigue, autism, and emotional disturbances.  The decision to welcome all willing participants was encouraged by the Cerebellar Cognitive Affective Syndrome (Schmahmann & Sherman, 1998), wherein it is postulated that cerebellum dysfunction causes cognitive and affective dysfunctions.  The cerebellum executes executive control in the nervous system, both central and peripheral, and potentiates human function at an intimate level, and G. Kevin Gifford, DC, EDD. believed that the effects of CMCRP would be strong enough to overcome confounding variables.  This is what was observed and demonstrates that CMCRP significantly increased Human Intelligence and Cerebellum Motor Coordination.

Weaknesses in this study were the size of the control group, and the length of the study.  The low number of control participants (8) affected analysis of significance.  More control participants will be recruited as this study continues for another 1.5 years.  Research questions still unanswered include whether there are limits to the amount of improvement possible to cerebellum motor coordination and intelligence from CMCRP, what length of time is best for CMCRP therapy, and how long do the effects of CMCRP last after therapy ends?  Also, does age significantly affect IQ improvement and retention of benefit?  At this point of our study, it appears that IQ increases similarly between the young and old.  More participants, both experimental and control, can help answer these questions.

Gerald Kevin Gifford, DC, EDD.

References

Alloway, T. P., & Alloway, R. G. (2010). Investigating the predictive roles of working memory and IQ in academic attainment. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 106, 20-29.

Basic, D., Khoo, A., Conforti, D., Rowland, J., Vrantsidis, F., Logiudice, D., et al. (March 2009). Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale, Mini-Mental State Examination, and General Practitioner Assessment of Cognition in a multicultural cohort of community-dwelling older persons with early dementia. Australian Psychologist, 44(1), 40-53.

Colom, R., Karama, S., Jung, R. E., & Haier, R. J. (2010). Human intelligence and brain networks. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 12(4), 489-501.

Cowan N. (2016). Working Memory Maturation: Can We Get at the Essence of Cognitive Growth?. Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 11(2), 239–264. doi:10.1177/1745691615621279

Plomin, R., & Deary, I. J. (2014). Genetics and intelligence differences: five special findings. Molecular psychiatry, 20(1), 98–108. doi:10.1038/mp.2014.105

Goriounova, N. A., & Mansvelder, H. D. (2019). Genes, Cells and Brain Areas of Intelligence. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 13, 44. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2019.00044

Gifford, G. K. (2013). Effects of cerebellum motor coordination rehabilitation on senior adult ataxia and dementia. Proprietary White Paper Research by Gifford Neurology Institute.

Information: www.GiffordNeurology.com

Gifford, G. K. (2018, March 13). Cognitive neuroscience in elementary education: A correlational study of cerebellum motor coordination and academic proficiency. Ann Arbor, Michigan: ProQuest.

Gifford, G. K. (2018). Effects of cerebellum motor coordination rehabilitation on 5th grade students’ Galileo mathematics and English language arts test scores. Proprietary White Paper Research by Gifford Neurology Institute.

Information: www.GiffordNeurology.com

Gifford, G. K. (2019). Effects of cerebellum motor coordination rehabilitation on human intelligence. Proprietary White Paper Research by Gifford Neurology Institute.

Information: www.GiffordNeurology.com

Jackson, J. H. (1898). Remarks on the relations of different divisions of the central nervous system to one another and to parts of the body: Delivered before the Neurological Society, December 8th, 1897. British Medical Journal, 1(1932), 65–69.

Schmahmann, J. D. (1991, November). An emerging concept: The cerebellar contribution to higher function. Archives of neurology, 48(11), 1178-1187.

Schmahmann, J. D. (1996). From movement to thought: Anatomic substrates of the cerebellar contribution to cognitive processing. Human Brain Mapping, 4, 174-198.

Schmahmann, J. D. (1997). Rediscovery of an early concept. International Revue of Neurobiology, 41, 3- 27.

Schmahmann, J. D., & Sherman, J. C. (1998). The cerebellar cognitive affective syndrome. Brain, 121, 561-579.

Schmahmann, J. D. (2004, Summer). Disorders of the cerebellum: Ataxia, dysmetria of thought, and the cerebellar cognitive affective syndrome. The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 16(3), 367-378.

Sokolov, A. A., Miall, R. C., & Ivry, R. B. (2017). The Cerebellum: Adaptive Prediction for Movement and Cognition. Trends in cognitive sciences, 21(5), 313-332.

Tamm, L., & Juranek, J. (2012). Fluid reasoning deficits in children with ADHD: evidence from fMRI. Brain research, 1465, 48–56. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2012.05.021

Tombaugh, T. N., McDowell, I., Kristjansson, B., & Hubley, A. M. (1996). Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Modified MMSE (3MS): A psychometric comparison and normative data. Psychological Assessment, 8(1), 48-59.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.8.1.48

Trouillas, P., Takayanagi, T., Hallett, M., Currier, R. D., Subramony, S. H., Wessel, K., et al. (1997). The International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale for pharmacological assessment of cerebellar syndrome. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 145, 205-2011.

Yoon, Y. B., Shin, W. G., Lee, T. Y., Hur, J. W., Cho, K., Sohn, W. S., Kim, S. G., Lee, K. H., … Kwon, J. S. (2017). Brain Structural Networks Associated with Intelligence and Visuomotor Ability. Scientific reports, 7(1), 2177. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-02304-z

Research Development

Down Syndrome and Autism

Current GNI research (2019 – 2020) includes the effects of Cerebellum Motor Coordination Rehabilitation on Down Syndrome and Autism. Initial results show improvement of physical balance and coordination, verbal skills and communication, emotion control, and the ability to follow instructions.