Search

In this study, we followed Greek children with and without dyslexia for 18 months, assessing them twice on a battery of phonological, reading, and spelling tasks, aiming to document the relative progress achieved and to uncover any specific effects of dyslexia in the development of reading and spelling beyond the longitudinal associations among variables that are observed in typical readers. A wide-ranging match was achieved between the dyslexic group and the younger reading-matched comparison group, enabling longitudinal comparisons on essentially identical initial performance profiles. Group differences were found in the development of tasks relying on phonological processing skill, such as phoneme deletion in pseudowords, pseudoword reading accuracy and time, as well as in graphemic spelling accuracy. The results confirm findings from cross-sectional studies of reading difficulty in the relatively transparent Greek orthography and are consistent with a phonological processing deficit underlying and reciprocally interacting with underdevelopment of reading and spelling skills in the impaired population., (Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

We examined two hypotheses relating auditory processing to dyslexia in Greek, an orthographically consistent language. Study I examined the "P-center" or "beat detection" hypothesis (Goswami et al., 2002) in a sample of Grade 6 dyslexics, Grade 6 chronological age (CA) controls, and Grade 4 reading age (RA) controls. Study II examined the "temporal processing," or "rapid auditory processing" hypothesis (Tallal, 1980) in a sample of Grade 7 dyslexics, CA controls, and in two groups of CA matched children with low frequency discrimination or low tone sequencing performance. Both studies indicate that (a) as a group, dyslexic children did not perform significantly worse on auditory processing measures than the control groups; (b) measures of auditory processing mostly did not account for unique amount of variance in phonological processing, reading, or spelling; and (c) at an individual level of analysis, some of the dyslexic children experienced auditory temporal processing deficits. Implications on the importance of auditory processing in reading in orthographically consistent languages are discussed., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Srl. All rights reserved.)

In this study, we examined the characteristics of reading disability (RD) in the seventh grade of the Greek educational system and the corresponding diagnostic practice. We presented a clinically administered assessment battery, composed of typically employed tasks, and a fully automated, computer-based assessment battery that evaluates some of the same constructs. In all, 261 children ages 12 to 14 were tested. The results of the traditional assessment indicated that RD concerns primarily slow reading and secondarily poor reading and spelling accuracy. This pattern was matched in the domains most attended to in expert student evaluation. Automatic (computer-based) screening for RD in the target age range matched expert judgment in validity and reliability in the absence of a full clinical evaluation. It is proposed that the educational needs of the middle and high school population in Greece will be best served by concentrating on reading and spelling performance--particularly fluency--employing widespread computer-based screening to partially make up for expert-personnel shortage.

We examined the manifestation of dyslexia in a cross-linguistic study contrasting English and Greek children with dyslexia compared to chronological age and reading-level control groups on reading accuracy and fluency, phonological awareness, short-term memory, rapid naming, orthographic choice, and spelling. Materials were carefully matched across languages in item properties and structure. English children with dyslexia were more impaired on reading accuracy and phoneme deletion but not on reading fluency, memory, naming, or orthographic choice. No differences in impairment were observed between words and pseudowords across languages. Orthographic tests targeted specific morphemes to examine the accessibility of functionally distinct word parts across languages. There were no differences in prefix and stem orthographic choice, but English children were less successful in spelling inflectional suffixes despite greater morphological richness in Greek, highlighting the need for additional considerations beyond grain size in cross-linguistic work.

Dyslexic difficulties in lexical stress were compared to difficulties in segmental phonology. Twenty-nine adolescents with dyslexia and 29 typically developing adolescents, matched on age and nonverbal ability, were assessed on reading, spelling, phonological and stress awareness, rapid naming, and short-term memory. Group differences in stress assignment were larger than in segmental phonology in reading and spelling pseudowords but not words, indicating a fragility of explicit processes that manipulate stress representations. Despite impaired stress performance in dyslexia at the group level, individual variability failed to reveal evidence for a stress-specific deficit or for a distinct stress-impaired subgroup.

In this study we propose a classification system for spelling errors and determine the most common spelling difficulties of Greek children with and without dyslexia. Spelling skills of 542 children from the general population and 44 children with dyslexia, Grades 3-4 and 7, were assessed with a dictated common word list and age-appropriate passages. Spelling errors were classified into broad categories, including phonological (graphophonemic mappings), grammatical (inflectional suffixes), orthographic (word stems), stress assignment (diacritic), and punctuation. Errors were further classified into specific subcategories. Relative proportions for a total of 11,364 errors were derived by calculating the opportunities for each error type. Nondyslexic children of both age groups made primarily grammatical and stress errors, followed by orthographic errors. Phonological and punctuation errors were negligible. Most frequent specific errors were in derivational affixes, stress diacritics, inflectional suffixes, and vowel historical spellings. Older children made fewer errors, especially in inflectional suffixes. Dyslexic children differed from nondyslexic ones in making more errors of the same types, in comparable relative proportions. Spelling profiles of dyslexic children did not differ from those of same-age children with poor reading skills or of younger children matched in reading and phonological awareness. In conclusion, spelling errors of both dyslexic and nondyslexic children indicate persistent difficulty with internalizing regularities of the Greek orthographic lexicon, including derivational, inflectional, and word (stem) families. This difficulty is greater for children with dyslexia.

Stroop interference is often taken as evidence for reading automaticity even though young and poor readers, who presumably lack reading automaticity, present strong interference. Here the relationship between reading skills and Stroop interference was studied in a 7th-grade sample. Greater interference was observed in children diagnosed with reading disability (dyslexia) than in unimpaired children. Moreover, poorer reading skills were found to correlate with greater Stroop interference in the general school population. In correlation and regression analyses, interference was primarily associated with reading speed, with an additional unique contribution of reading accuracy. Color naming errors were few and not comparably related to reading skills. The relation of reading skill to Stroop interference was examined in computational modeling simulations. The production model of Roelofs [Roelofs, A. (2003). Goal-referenced selection of verbal action: modeling attentional control in the Stroop task. "Psychological Review, 110", 88-125], in which interference is primarily due to word stimuli having direct access to word form encoding whereas color naming must pass through concept activation and lemma selection, was found to account well for the human data after imposing covariation constraints on parameters controlling word processing and blocking latency, in modifications not affecting the model's previous fit to other data. The connectionist model of Cohen, Dunbar, and McClelland [Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: a parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. "Psychological Review, 97", 332-361], in which interference is caused by differential route strength, implementing an automaticity account, approximated the observed patterns with network-wide parameter manipulations not specific to reading, such as processing speed and response threshold, likely to affect previously optimized performance. On the basis of the empirical and modeling data we argue for a direct link between reading skill and interference, beyond the effects of executive functioning.

The present study examined differences between inflectional and derivational morphology using Greek nouns and verbs with masked priming (with both short and long stimulus onset asynchrony) and long-lag priming. A lexical decision task to inflected noun and verb targets was used to test whether their processing is differentially facilitated by prior presentation of their stem in words of the same grammatical class (inflectional morphology) or of a different grammatical class (derivational morphology). Differences in semantics, syntactic information, and morphological complexity between inflected and derived word pairs (both nouns and verbs) were minimized by unusually tight control of stimuli as permitted by Greek morphology. Results showed that morphological relations affected processing of morphologically complex Greek words (nouns and verbs) across prime durations (50–250ms) as well as when items intervened between primes and targets. In two of the four experiments (Experiments 1 and 3), inflectionally related primes produced significantly greater effects than derivationally related primes suggesting differences in processing inflectional versus derivational morphological relations, which may disappear when processing is less dependent on semantic effects (Experiment 4). Priming effects differed for verb vs. noun targets with long SOA priming (Experiment 3), consistent with processing differences between complex words of different grammatical class (nouns and verbs) when semantic effects are maximized. Taken together, results demonstrate that inflectional and derivational relations differentially affect processing complex words of different grammatical class (nouns and verbs). This finding indicates that distinctions of morphological relation (inflectional vs. derivational) are not of the same kind as distinctions of grammatical class (nouns vs. verbs). Asymmetric differences among inflected and derived verbs and nouns seem to depend on semantic effects and/or processing demands modulating priming effects very early in lexical processing of morphologically complex written words, consistent with models of lexical processing positing early access to morphological structure and early influence of semantics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aspects of dyslexia definitions are framed as a contrast between the past and the future, focusing on implications for research and remedial education, highlighting assumptions that bias or limit research or clinical practice. A crucial development is evident in understanding dyslexia, moving from its conceptualization as a discrete identifiable condition toward the realization of continuity with the general population with no clear boundaries and no qualitative differences. This conceptual evolution amounts to a transition from considering dyslexia to be some entity that causes poor reading toward considering the term dyslexia to simply label poor reading performance. This renders obsolete any searches for abnormalities and directs efforts toward understanding reading skill as a multifaceted domain following a complex multifactorial developmental course. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We recently pointed out that there is no evidence to support the commonly held view that there is something wrong with the brains of children who have great difficulty learning to read. In response, it was argued that dyslexia should be considered to be a neurodevelopmental disorder because of its potential to adversely affect quality of life, and because there are differences between the brains of people with different levels of reading skill. We agree with these two points, but they are irrelevant to the issue in question, because neither establishes the critical notion of disrupted neurodevelopment; that is, a brain fault. Differences between groups do not imply that any individuals are abnormal, and calling a brain improperly developed on the basis of cultural issues has absurd implications. Even calling brains atypical is unfounded because reference to typicality hinges on knowledge of the relevant distributions, which is currently lacking. Moreover, there is at present no obvious role for neurology- or neuroscience-based input for the critical issue of the assessment and remediation of the reading difficulties themselves. We reiterate our conclusion that there is, at the moment, no credible foundation to support the claim that dyslexia is a neurodevelopmental disorder. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Specific word reading difficulty, commonly termed ‘developmental dyslexia’, refers to the low end of the word reading skill distribution but is frequently considered to be a neurodevelopmental disorder. This term implies that brain development is thought to be disrupted, resulting in an abnormal and dysfunctional brain. We take issue with this view, pointing out that there is no evidence of any obvious neurological abnormality in the vast majority of cases of word reading difficulty cases. The available relevant evidence from neuroimaging studies consists almost entirely of correlational and group-differences studies. However, differences in brains are certain to exist whenever differences in behavior exist, including differences in ability and performance. Therefore, findings of brain differences do not constitute evidence for abnormality; rather, they simply document the neural substrate of the behavioral differences. We suggest that dyslexia is best viewed as one of many expressions of ordinary ubiquitous individual differences in normal developmental outcomes. Thus, terms such as “dysfunctional” or “abnormal” are not justified when referring to the brains of persons with dyslexia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]