Music and rhythm-based training programs to improve reading are a novel approach to treatment of developmental dyslexia and have attracted the attention of trainers and researchers. Experimental studies demonstrating poor basic auditory processing abilities in individuals with dyslexia suggest they should be effective. On this basis, the efficacy of a novel rhythm-based intervention, Rhythmic Reading Training (RRT), was recently investigated and found to improve reading skills in Italian children with dyslexia, but its mode of action remains somewhat unclear. In this study, 19 children and preadolescents with dyslexia received 20 sessions of RRT over 10 weeks. Gains in a set of reading-related cognitive abilities—verbal working memory, auditory, and visual attention, and rhythm processing—were measured, along with reading outcomes. Analysis of the specific contribution of cognitive subprocesses to the primary effect of RRT highlighted that reading speed improvement during the intervention was related to rhythm and auditory discrimination abilities as well as verbal working memory. The relationships among specific reading parameters and the neuropsychological profile of participants are discussed.

No abstract

The possibility of using rhythmic auditory interventions for addressing dyslexia-related difficulties has been empirically explored by several investigations, with encouraging results. Such findings inspired the design of a novel rhythm-based intervention, Rhythmic Reading Training (RRT), specifically designed for students with developmental dyslexia (DD). To measure RRT efficacy, a clinical trial with an active-controlled design was carried out. More precisely, RRT combined with music games was contrasted with a personalized multi-componential treatment of DD of proven efficacy, namely, the Abilmente approach. Thirty-two children and preadolescents with DD received either one of the two interventions under the supervision of a specialized trainer. Immediate- and medium-term effects on reading skills did not differ between the two interventions. The analysis of the specific contribution of each methodology showed that the Abilmente approach was more effective in improving text reading, while RRT induced more consistent maintenance of all reading sub-processes 4 weeks after the end of the treatment. Consistent with previous research, the rhythmic intervention showed more consistent effects on reading speed. These results confirmed the efficacy of a unimodal process-based intervention such as RRT in inducing global reading effects comparable with those following a personalized multi-componential intervention.

No abstract