Developmental dyslexia: specific phonological deficit or general sensorimotor dysfunction?

Ramus, Dr Franck (2003) Developmental dyslexia: specific phonological deficit or general sensorimotor dysfunction? [Journal (Paginated)]

Full text available as:



Dyslexia research is now facing an intriguing paradox: it is becoming increasingly clear that a significant proportion of dyslexics present sensory and motor deficits; however, as this “sensorimotor syndrome” is being studied in greater detail, it is also becoming increasingly clear that sensory and motor deficits will play only a limited role in a general causal explanation of specific reading disability.

Item Type:Journal (Paginated)
Additional Information:Use alternative location for final pdf file.
Keywords:Dyslexia; reading; phonology; magnocellular; audition; vision; motor control; temporal processing
Subjects:Neuroscience > Neuropsychology
Psychology > Developmental Psychology
Linguistics > Phonology
ID Code:4522
Deposited By:Ramus, Dr Franck
Deposited On:01 Sep 2005
Last Modified:11 Mar 2011 08:56

References in Article

Select the SEEK icon to attempt to find the referenced article. If it does not appear to be in cogprints you will be forwarded to the paracite service. Poorly formated references will probably not work.

1. Liberman IY: Segmentation of the spoken word. Bulletin of the Orton Society 1973, 23:65-77.

2. Stanovich KE: Explaining the differences between the dyslexic and the garden-variety poor reader: the phonological-core variable-difference model. J Learn Disabil 1988, 21:590-604.

3. Snowling MJ: Dyslexia edn 2nd. Oxford: Blackwell; 2000.

4. Galaburda AM, Sherman GF, Rosen GD, Aboitiz F, Geschwind N: Developmental dyslexia: four consecutive patients with cortical anomalies. Ann Neurol 1985, 18:222-233.

5. Paulesu E, Démonet J-F, Fazio F, McCrory E, Chanoine V, Brunswick N, Cappa SF, Cossu G, Habib M, Frith CD, et al.: Dyslexia: Cultural Diversity and Biological Unity. Science 2001:2165-2167.

6. Temple E, Poldrack RA, Salidis J, Deutsch GK, Tallal P, Merzenich MM, Gabrieli JD: Disrupted neural responses to phonological and orthographic processing in dyslexic children: an fMRI study. Neuroreport 2001, 12:299-307.

7. Tallal P: Auditory temporal perception, phonics, and reading disabilities in children. Brain and Language 1980, 9:182-198.

8. Lovegrove WJ, Bowling A, Badcock B, Blackwood M: Specific reading disability: differences in contrast sensitivity as a function of spatial frequency. Science 1980, 210:439-440.

*9. Nicolson RI, Fawcett AJ, Dean P: Dyslexia, development and the cerebellum. Trends Neurosci 2001, 24:515-516.

The latest and most comprehensive description of the cerebellar theory of dyslexia.

*10. Stein J: The magnocellular theory of developmental dyslexia. Dyslexia 2001, 7:12-36.

The latest and most comprehensive description of the magnocellular theory of dyslexia.

11. Hari R, Renvall H: Impaired processing of rapid stimulus sequences in dyslexia. Trends Cogn Sci 2001, 5:525-532.

12. Stoodley CJ, Talcott JB, Carter EL, Witton C, Stein JF: Selective deficits of vibrotactile sensitivity in dyslexic readers. Neuroscience Letters 2000, 295:13-16.

13. Wright BA, Bowen RW, Zecker SG: Nonlinguistic perceptual deficits associated with reading and language disorders. Current Opinion In Neurobiology 2000, 10:482-486.

14. Temple E: Brain mechanisms in normal and dyslexic readers. Current Opinion In Neurobiology 2002, 12:178-183.

15. Ramus F: Dyslexia - Talk of two theories. Nature 2001, 412:393-395.

16. Rey V, De Martino S, Espesser R, Habib M: Temporal processing and phonological impairment in dyslexia: effect of phoneme lengthening on order judgment of two consonants. Brain Lang 2002, 80:576-591.

17. De Martino S, Espesser R, Rey V, Habib M: The "temporal processing deficit" hypothesis in dyslexia: new experimental evidence. Brain Cogn 2001, 46:104-108.

**18. Share DL, Jorm AF, MacLean R, Matthews R: Temporal processing and reading disability. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 2002, 15:151-178.

This is a unique longitudinal evaluation of the auditory temporal processing hypothesis. The authors have examined the relationship between auditory (Tallal's repetition test), phonological and reading skills from kindergarten to Grade 2. They have found that dyslexic children tended to have impaired auditory processing at long rather than short inter-stimulus intervals, and only compared to the chronological-age control group; and that early auditory deficits did not predict later phonological and reading impairments.

19. Heiervang E, Stevenson J, Hugdahl K: Auditory processing in children with dyslexia. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2002, 43:931-938.

**20. Chiappe P, Stringer R, Siegel LS, Stanovich KE: Why the timing deficit hypothesis does not explain reading disability in adults. Reading and Writing 2002, 15:73-107.

This is one of a few studies addressing the temporal processing hypothesis in the visual, auditory and motor domains within the same subjects, and with systematic manipulation of inter-stimulus intervals. It reveals that while dyslexics are often impaired at temporal processing tasks, there is no interaction with interval duration. And temporal processing skills do not predict phonological skills.

21. France SJ, Rosner BS, Hansen PC, Calvin C, Talcott JB, Richardson AJ, Stein JF: Auditory frequency discrimination in adult developmental dyslexics. Percept Psychophys 2002, 64:169-179.

**22. Amitay S, Ben-Yehudah G, Banai K, Ahissar M: Disabled readers suffer from visual and auditory impairments but not from a specific magnocellular deficit. Brain 2002, 125:2272-2285.

The authors have administered possibly the most comprehensive battery of visual psychophysical tests to date (and a few auditory tests) to adult dyslexics and controls. They have found that only a subset of dyslexics were impaired in these tasks, and not in the spatio-temporal range of frequencies predicted by the magno-cellular and temporal processing theories.

**23. Amitay S, Ahissar M, Nelken I: Auditory processing deficits in reading disabled adults. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2002, 3:302-320.

This is the most comprehensive study of dyslexic's basic auditory processing to date. It shows that a subgroup of dyslexics have an auditory deficit, but that it cannot be characterised in terms of rapid temporal processing. Furthermore, auditory skill does not predict reading skill, but seems to place an upper limit on it (poor listeners are poor readers, but not necessarily the other way around; a result quite similar to [31]).

24. van Ingelghem M, van Wieringen A, Wouters J, Vandenbussche E, Onghena P, Ghesquière P: Psychophysical evidence for a general temporal processing deficit in children with dyslexia. Neuroreport 2001, 12:3603-3607.

*25. Kronbichler M, Hutzler F, Wimmer H: Dyslexia: Verbal impairments in the absence of magnocellular impairments. Neuroreport 2002, 13:617-620.

Another rare study looking simultaneously at auditory, visual, motor and phonological skills in dyslexic children. The authors report no significant group differences in any of the sensorimotor tasks, yet large differences in phonological skill.

26. Witton C, Stein JF, Stoodley CJ, Rosner BS, Talcott JB: Separate Influences of Acoustic AM and FM Sensitivity on the Phonological Decoding Skills of Impaired and Normal Readers. J Cogn Neurosci 2002, 14:866-874.

27. Goswami U, Thomson J, Richardson U, Stainthorp R, Hughes D, Rosen S, Scott SK: Amplitude envelope onsets and developmental dyslexia: A new hypothesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002, 99:10911-10916.

28. Breier JI, Gray L, Fletcher JM, Diehl RL, Klaas P, Foorman BR, Molis MR: Perception of voice and tone onset time continua in children with dyslexia with and without attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Exp Child Psychol 2001, 80:245-270.

*29. Serniclaes W, Sprenger-Charolles L, Carré R, Démonet J-F: Perceptual discrimination of speech sounds in developmental dyslexia. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 2001, 44:384-399.

A clever study comparing syllable discrimination within and across phonemic boundaries, and finding that dyslexics have, on average, better discriminative abilities within-boundaries, which would suggest that their perception is less categorical and more based on purely acoustic cues. The use of sine-wave speech allows the authors to tap speech and non-speech modes with the same stimuli: they find that enhanced within-boundary discrimination is stronger in speech mode, precluding an explanation in terms of temporal processing (this replicates [37] and is similar to findings by [30] and [31]).

*30. Rosen S, Manganari E: Is there a relationship between speech and nonspeech auditory processing in children with dyslexia? J Speech Lang Hear Res 2001, 44:720-736.

The authors have administered a large battery of speech and non-speech perceptual tests to dyslexic and control children. They show that speech perception skills are not predicted by non-speech perception skills, and that the perceptual deficits found in a subset of dyslexics cannot be explained in terms of rapid temporal processing.

**31. Ramus F, Rosen S, Dakin SC, Day BL, Castellote JM, White S, Frith U: Theories of developmental dyslexia: Insights from a multiple case study of dyslexic adults. Brain in press.

This study describes possibly the largest battery of phonological, auditory, visual and cerebellar/motor tests administered to dyslexics and controls. It reports a very limited incidence of visual and motor deficits. Auditory deficits are present in 60% of the dyslexic sample, but with very variable manifestations across individuals (not particularly rapid processing) and at most an aggravating influence on the phonological deficit. Every single dyslexic in this sample shows a phonological deficit, with a third of them who seem entirely spared by any concurrent sensory or motor deficit.

32. McArthur GM, Bishop DVM: Auditory perceptual processing in people with reading and oral language impairments: Current issues and recommendations. Dyslexia 2001, 7:150-170.

33. Marshall CM, Snowling MJ, Bailey PJ: Rapid auditory processing and phonological ability in normal readers and readers with dyslexia. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 2001, 44:925-940.

34. Heim S, Freeman RB, Jr., Eulitz C, Elbert T: Auditory temporal processing deficit in dyslexia is associated with enhanced sensitivity in the visual modality. Neuroreport 2001, 12:507-510.

35. Tallal P, Miller S, Fitch RH: Neurobiological basis of speech: a case for the preeminence of temporal processing. Ann.N.Y.Acad.Sci. 1993, 682:27-47.

36. Wright BA, Lombardino LJ, King WM, Puranik CS, Leonard CM, Merzenich MM: Deficits in auditory temporal and spectral resolution in language- impaired children. Nature 1997, 387:176-178.

37. Mody M, Studdert-Kennedy M, Brady S: Speech perception deficits in poor readers: auditory processing or phonological coding? J Exp Child Psychol 1997, 64:199-231.

38. Tallal P, Miller SL, Bedi G, Byma G, Wang X, Nagarajan SS, Schreiner C, Jenkins WM, Merzenich MM: Language comprehension in language-learning impaired children improved with acoustically modified speech. Science 1996, 271:81-83.

39. Tallal P, Merzenich MM, Miller S, Jenkins IH: Language learning impairments: integrating basic science, technology, and remediation. Exp Brain Res 1998, 123:210-219.

40. Kujala T, Karma K, Ceponiene R, Belitz S, Turkkila P, Tervaniemi M, Näätänen R: Plastic neural changes and reading improvement caused by audiovisual training in reading-impaired children. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001, 98:10509-10514.

*41. Friel-Patti S, Frome Loeb D, Gillam RB: Looking ahead: An introduction to five exploratory studies of Fast Forword. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 2001, 10:195-202.

*42. Gillam RB, Frome Loeb D, Friel-Patti S: Looking back: A summary of five exploratory studies of Fast Forword. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 2001, 10:269-273.

These two papers introduce and summarise a "Special forum on Fast ForWord" including five small-scale independent assessments of the controversial remediation program [39]. The first paper recalls all the important issues concerning the proper evaluation of remediation programs in general and that of Fast ForWord in particular (NB: they also apply to [40]). The second paper concludes that Fast ForWord does not seem more effective than other more conventional remediation programs.

*43. Hook PE, Macaruso P, Jones S: Efficacy of Fast ForWord Training on Facilitating Acquisition of Reading Skills by Children with Reading Difficulties - A Longitudinal Study. Annals of Dyslexia 2001, LI:75-96.

In this study the effectiveness of the Fast ForWord program was compared to the (less intensive) Orton Gillingham training in two matched groups of reading-disabled children. Overall, the authors found very similar (positive) outcomes for the two programs, and question the specific role played by acoustically modified speech.

44. Wilkins AJ: Visual stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995.

45. Bouldoukian J, Wilkins AJ, Evans BJ: Randomised controlled trial of the effect of coloured overlays on the rate of reading of people with specific learning difficulties. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2002, 22:55-60.

46. Wilkins AJ, Lewis E, Smith F, Rowland E, Tweedie W: Coloured overlays and their benefit for reading. Journal of Research in Reading 2001, 24:41-64.

47. Spinelli D, De Luca M, Judica A, Zoccolotti P: Crowding effects on word identification in developmental dyslexia. Cortex 2002, 38:179-200.

48. Hari R, Renvall H, Tanskanen T: Left minineglect in dyslexic adults. Brain 2001, 124:1373-1380.

49. Ridder WH, 3rd, Borsting E, Banton T: All developmental dyslexic subtypes display an elevated motion coherence threshold. Optom Vis Sci 2001, 78:510-517.

50. Davis C, Castles A, McAnally K, Gray J: Lapses of concentration and dyslexic performance on the Ternus task. Cognition 2001, 81:B21-31.

51. Hansen PC, Stein JF, Orde SR, Winter JL, Talcott JB: Are dyslexics' visual deficits limited to measures of dorsal stream function? Neuroreport 2001, 12:1527-1530.

52. Romani A, Conte S, Callieco R, Bergamaschi R, Versino M, Lanzi G, Zambrino CA, Cosi V: Visual evoked potential abnormalities in dyslexic children. Funct Neurol 2001, 16:219-229.

53. Pammer K, Wheatley C: Isolating the M(y)-cell response in dyslexia using the spatial frequency doubling illusion. Vision Res 2001, 41:2139-2147.

54. Skottun BC: On the use of metacontrast to assess magnocellular function in dyslexic readers. Percept Psychophys 2001, 63:1271-1274.

55. Skottun BC: On the use of the Ternus test to assess magnocellular function. Perception 2001, 30:1449-1457.

*56. Olson R, Datta H: Visual-temporal processing in reading-disabled and normal twins. Reading and Writing 2002, 15:127-149.

This is the first behavioral-genetic study of visual magnocellular function, conducted on 356 twins. It found that reading-disabled twins had significantly higher contrast detection thresholds on average; however, this was found across all spatial and temporal frequencies. Moreover, there was no significant genetic influence on individual differences in threshold levels.

57. Ben-Yehudah G, Sackett E, Malchi-Ginzberg L, Ahissar M: Impaired temporal contrast sensitivity in dyslexics is specific to retain-and-compare paradigms. Brain 2001, 124:1381-1395.

58. Farrag AF, Khedr EM, Abel-Naser W: Impaired parvocellular pathway in dyslexic children. Eur J Neurol 2002, 9:359-363.

59. Hill GT, Raymond JE: Deficits of motion transparency perception in adult developmental dyslexics with normal unidirectional motion sensitivity. Vision Res 2002, 42:1195-1203.

60. Stuart GW, McAnally KI, Castles A: Can contrast sensitivity functions in dyslexia be explained by inattention rather than a magnocellular deficit? Vision Research 2001, 41:3205-3211.

61. Simmers AJ, Bex PJ, Smith FKH, Wilkins AJ: Spatiotemporal visual function in tinted lens wearers. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science 2001, 42:879-884.

62. Ramus F, Pidgeon E, Frith U: The relationship between motor control and phonology in dyslexic children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry in press.

63. Fawcett AJ, Nicolson RI, Maclagan F: Cerebellar tests differentiate between groups of poor readers with and without IQ discrepancy. Journal of Learning Disabilities 2001, 34:119-135.

64. Wolff PH: Timing precision and rhythm in developmental dyslexia. Reading and Writing 2002, 15:179-206.

65. Wimmer H, Mayringer H, Raberger T: Reading and dual-task balancing: Evidence against the automatization deficit explanation of developmental dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities 1999, 32:473-478.

66. Nicolson RI, Daum I, Schugens MM, Fawcett AJ, Schulz A: Eyeblink conditioning indicates cerebellar abnormality in dyslexia. Exp Brain Res 2002, 143:42-50.

67. Kelly SW, Griffiths S, Frith U: Evidence for implicit sequence learning in dyslexia. Dyslexia 2002, 8:43-52.

68. Witton C, Talcott JB, Hansen PC, Richardson AJ, Griffiths TD, Rees A, Stein JF, Green GG: Sensitivity to dynamic auditory and visual stimuli predicts nonword reading ability in both dyslexic and normal readers. Curr Biol 1998, 8:791-797.

69. Laasonen M, Service E, Virsu V: Temporal order and processing acuity of visual, auditory, and tactile perception in developmentally dyslexic young adults. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 2001, 1:394-410.

70. Laasonen M, Service E, Virsu V: Crossmodal temporal order and processing acuity in developmentally dyslexic young adults. Brain Lang 2002, 80:340-354.

71. Hill EL: Non-specific nature of specific language impairment: a review of the literature with regard to concomitant motor impairments. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2001, 36:149-171.

72. McArthur GM, Hogben JH: Auditory backward recognition masking in children with a specific language impairment and children with a specific reading disability. J Acoust Soc Am 2001, 109:1092-1100.

73. Milne E, Swettenham J, Hansen P, Campbell R, Jeffries H, Plaisted K: High motion coherence thresholds in children with autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 2002, 43:255-263.

74. O'Brien J, Spencer J, Atkinson J, Braddick O, Wattam-Bell J: Form and motion coherence processing in dyspraxia: evidence of a global spatial processing deficit. Neuroreport 2002, 13:1399-1402.

75. Atkinson J, King J, Braddick O, Nokes L, Anker S, Braddick F: A specific deficit of dorsal stream function in Williams' syndrome. Neuroreport 1997, 8:1919-1922.

76. Davis CJ, Gayan J, Knopik VS, Smith SD, Cardon LR, Pennington BF, Olson RK, DeFries JC: Etiology of reading difficulties and rapid naming: the Colorado Twin Study of Reading Disability. Behav Genet 2001, 31:625-635.

77. Bishop DV, Bishop SJ, Bright P, James C, Delaney T, Tallal P: Different origin of auditory and phonological processing problems in children with language impairment: evidence from a twin study. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1999, 42:155-168.

78. Wolf M, Goldberg O'Rourke A, Gidney C, Lovett M, Cirino P, Morris R: The second deficit: An investigation of the independence of phonological and naming-speed deficits in developmental dyslexia. Reading and Writing 2002, 15:43-72.

79. Compton DL, DeFries JC, Olson RK: Are RAN- and phonological awareness-deficits additive in children with reading disabilities? Dyslexia 2001, 7:125-149.

80. Ramus F: Outstanding questions about phonological processing in dyslexia. Dyslexia 2001, 7:197-216.

81. Facoetti A, Turatto M, Lorusso ML, Mascetti GG: Orienting of visual attention in dyslexia: evidence for asymmetric hemispheric control of attention. Exp Brain Res 2001, 138:46-53.

82. Pennington BF, Lefly DL: Early reading development in children at family risk for dyslexia. Child Dev 2001, 72:816-833.

83. Lyytinen H, Ahonen T, Eklund K, Guttorm TK, Laakso ML, Leinonen S, Leppanen PH, Lyytinen P, Poikkeus AM, Puolakanaho A, et al.: Developmental pathways of children with and without familial risk for dyslexia during the first years of life. Dev Neuropsychol 2001, 20:535-554.

84. Lundberg I: The child's route into reading and what can go wrong. Dyslexia 2002, 8:1-13.


Repository Staff Only: item control page