Below-Average, Average, and Above-Average Readers Engage Different and Similar Brain Regions While Reading

Abstract

Event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded from 27 children (14 girls, 13 boys) who varied in their reading skill levels. Both behavior performance measures recorded during the ERP word classification task and the ERP responses themselves discriminated between children with above-average, average, and below-average reading skills. ERP amplitudes and peak latencies decreased as reading skills increased. Furthermore, hemisphere differences increased with higher reading skill levels. Sex differences were also related to ERP amplitude variations across the scalp. However, ERPs recorded from boys and girls did not differ as a function of differences in the children's reading levels.

Adequate Versus Inadequate Response to Reading Intervention: An Event-Related Potentials Assessment

“…Amplitude and latency measures were averaged (similar to Molfese et al, 2006) from 10 electrodes. The Sensor Layout (or electrode montage) is in Figure 2.…”

“…Additionally, we believed that the TD and AR groups would differ in the right hemisphere, possibly due to compensatory mechanisms. (2) We also hypothesized that children in the TD and AR groups would show a hemisphere effect (LH > RH) in the normalization scheme displayed by Simos et al (2002, 2005, 2006, 2007) and by Molfese et al (2006); we did not anticipate a laterality effect for children in the IR group. (3) Finally, we hypothesized that a stimulus condition × group interaction would be present in the P300, where children in the TD and AR groups would generate larger evoked responses to non-rhyming trials compared to rhyming trials, similar to Bonte and Blomert (2004).…”

“…Based on previously published work (Bonte & Blomert, 2004; Lovrich et al, 2003; Molfese et al, 2006; Simos et al 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007) linking rhyming tasks with developmental studies of RD, we targeted three peaks a priori (P100, N200, and P300). For these peaks, we hypothesized: (1) Each peak (P100, N200, P300) would differentiate the three groups of children (TD, AR, IR) by a group × hemisphere interaction.…”

“…For these peaks, we hypothesized: (1) Each peak (P100, N200, P300) would differentiate the three groups of children (TD, AR, IR) by a group × hemisphere interaction. Based on previous findings from ERP (Bonte and Blomert, 2004; Molfese et al, 2006), MEG (Simos et al 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007), and fMRI (Aylward et al, 2003; Meyler et al, 2008; Shaywitz et al, 2004; Temple et al, 2003), we expected that TD and AR would be differentiated from IR children in the left hemisphere, due in part to the normalization of the brain following successful reading intervention. Additionally, we believed that the TD and AR groups would differ in the right hemisphere, possibly due to compensatory mechanisms.…”

Impairments in Attention in Occasionally Snoring Children: An Event-Related Potential Study

“…The recording of ERPs is a highly sensitive technique that is both safe and well tolerated in children and infants. ERPs can detect (and in some cases predict) significant neuropsychological differences even in the absence of gross findings (Lyytinen et al , 2001; Lyytinen et al , 1992; Lyytinen & Naatanen, 1987; Molfese & Molfese, 1985; Molfese, 1989, 1990, 2000; Molfese et al , 2006). …”