scholarly journals A Temporal Sampling Basis for Visual Processing in Developmental Dyslexia

Author(s):  
Kim Archer ◽  
Kristen Pammer ◽  
Trichur Raman Vidyasagar
2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (10) ◽  
pp. 627
Author(s):  
Heida Sigurdardottir ◽  
Liv Fridriksdottir ◽  
Sigridur Gudjonsdottir ◽  
Árni Kristjánsson

Author(s):  
John Stein

Until the 1950s, developmental dyslexia was defined as a hereditary visual disability, selectively affecting reading without compromising oral or non-verbal reasoning skills. This changed radically after the development of the phonological theory of dyslexia; this not only ruled out any role for visual processing in its aetiology, but also cast doubt on the use of discrepancy between reading and reasoning skills as a criterion for diagnosing it. Here I argue that this theory is set at too high a cognitive level to be explanatory; we need to understand the pathophysiological visual and auditory mechanisms that cause children’s phonological problems. I discuss how the ‘magnocellular theory’ attempts to do this in terms of slowed and error prone temporal processing which leads to dyslexics’ defective visual and auditory sequencing when attempting to read. I attempt to deal with the criticisms of this theory and show how it leads to a number of successful ways of helping dyslexic children to overcome their reading difficulties.


Dyslexia ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 110-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
George K. Georgiou ◽  
Timothy C. Papadopoulos ◽  
Elena Zarouna ◽  
Rauno Parrila

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 26 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Stein

Until the 1950s, developmental dyslexia was defined as a hereditary visual disability, selectively affecting reading without compromising oral or non-verbal reasoning skills. This changed radically after the development of the phonological theory of dyslexia; this not only ruled out any role for visual processing in its aetiology, but it also cast doubt on the use of discrepancy between reading and reasoning skills as a criterion for diagnosing it. Here I argue that this theory is set at too high a cognitive level to be explanatory; we need to understand the pathophysiological visual and auditory mechanisms that cause children’s phonological problems. I discuss how the ‘magnocellular theory’ attempts to do this in terms of slowed and error prone temporal processing which leads to dyslexics’ defective visual and auditory sequencing when attempting to read. I attempt to deal with the criticisms of this theory and show how it leads to a number of successful ways of helping dyslexic children to overcome their reading difficulties.


2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthieu Dubois ◽  
Chloe Prado ◽  
Sylviane Valdois ◽  
Soren Kyllingsbaek

1986 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 219-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Underwood ◽  
Daphne Boot

Two experiments investigated visual processing asymmetries in normal and dyslexic readers, with unilateral tachistoscopic presentations. The experiments employed randomized or blocked presentations of verbal and nonverbal materials to determine whether previously reported differences between dyslexics and normals were due to structural hemispheric differences or to strategical processing differences. The results indicate that if dyslexics are unable to predict the nature of the stimulus, then they behave as normal readers. Their atypical laterality emerges only when they can adopt a strategy in anticipation of a specific type of stimulus. This leads to the suggestion that developmental dyslexia is associated more with inappropriate modes of thought than it is with hemispheric dysfunction.


2004 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 528-540 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy B. Wilmer ◽  
Alexandra J. Richardson ◽  
Yue Chen ◽  
John F. Stein

Developmental dyslexia is associated with deficits in the processing of visual motion stimuli, and some evidence suggests that these motion processing deficits are related to various reading subskills deficits. However, little is known about the mechanisms underlying such associations. This study lays a richer groundwork for exploration of such mechanisms by more comprehensively and rigorously characterizing the relationship between motion processing deficits and reading subskills deficits. Thirty-six adult participants, 19 of whom had a history of developmental dyslexia, completed a battery of visual, cognitive, and reading tests. This battery combined motion processing and reading subskills measures used across previous studies and added carefully matched visual processing control tasks. Results suggest that there are in fact two distinct motion processing deficits in developmental dyslexia, rather than one as assumed by previous research, and that each of these deficits is associated with a different type of reading subskills deficit. A deficit in detecting coherent motion is selectively associated with low accuracy on reading subskills tests, and a deficit in discriminating velocities is selectively associated with slow performance on these same tests. In addition, evidence from visual processing control tasks as well as self-reports of ADHD symptoms suggests that these motion processing deficits are specific to the domain of visual motion, and result neither from a broader visual deficit, nor from the sort of generalized attention deficit commonly comorbid with developmental dyslexia. Finally, dissociation between these two motion processing deficits suggests that they may have distinct neural and functional underpinnings. The two distinct patterns of motion processing and reading deficits demonstrated by this study may reflect separable underlying neurocognitive mechanisms of developmental dyslexia.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document