Early Development of Neurophysiological Processes Involved in Normal Reading and Reading Disability: A Magnetic Source Imaging Study.

Abstract

This longitudinal study examined the development of the brain mechanism involved in phonological decoding in beginning readers using magnetic source imaging. Kindergarten students were assigned to 2 groups: those who showed mastery of skills that are important predictors of proficient reading (low-risk group) and those who initially did not show mastery but later benefited from systematic reading instruction and developed average-range reading skills at the end of Grade 1 (high-risk responders). Spatiotemporal profiles of brain activity were obtained during performance of letter-sound and pseudoword naming tasks before and after Grade 1 instruction. With few exceptions, low-risk children showed early development of brain activation profiles that are typical of older skilled readers. Provided that temporoparietal and visual association areas were recruited into the brain mechanism that supported reading, the majority of high-risk responder children benefited from systematic reading instruction and developed adequate reading abilities.

Cognitive hypothesis testing and response to intervention for children with reading problems

“…A variety of research has demonstrated that interventions based on individual cognitive and neuropsychological processes, including phonological awareness (e.g., Berninger, 2001;Torgesen et al, 1999), successive processing (Churches, Skuy, & Das, 2002), visual/orthographic processing (e.g., Berninger, 2001;Brunsdon, Hannan, Coltheart, & Nickels, 2002), attention training (e.g., Chenault, Thomson, Abbott, & Berninger, 2006;Solan, Shelley-Tremblay, Ficarra, Silverman, & Larson, 2003), working memory (Klingberg, Fernell, & Olesen, 2005), fluency/ processing speed (Torgesen, Rashotte, & Alexander, 2001), and metacognitive and strategy instruction (Vauras, Kinnunen, & Rauhanummi, 1999) can be used to improve word reading and reading comprehension. These interventions lead not only to behavioral or performance changes but also to changes in brain function as well Demonet, Taylor, & Chaix, 2004;Papanicolaou et al, 2003;Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2005;Simos et al, 2005). In addition, resources are now available to provide practitioners with multiple intervention strategies for cognitive processing deficits, such as Berninger's (2001) Process Assessment of the Learner (PAL), Hale & Fiorello's (2004) School Neuropsychology, Mather & Jaffe's (2002), WJ III: Reports, Recommendations, and Strategies, and Naglieri and Pickering's (2003) Helping Children Learn.…”

Understanding Dyslexia in Children Through Human Development Theories = فهم عسر القراءة لدى الأطفال من خلال نظريات التطور البشري

“…6 Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) studies have indicated that structural and functional brain-related factors were found in dyslexic children, for example, visual and temporal processing, magnocellular visual system, cerebellum and hemispheric asymmetry. 1,6,[15][16][17][18][19][20] Reid indicated that there are deficiencies in processing information and decoding words. Children with dyslexia have difficulties when transferring the information from one hemisphere of the brain to another.…”

“…As some studies have found that speech perception and production is affected in children with dyslexia at the preschool age, there is some evidence that screening for dyslexia should be conducted during this period. 11,15,16,18,[30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] The third stage is the Concrete Operational Stage from 6 to 11/12 years. Here, it is difficult to distinguish between learned knowledge and that acquired by personal experience.…”

What does the brain of children with developmental dyslexia tell us about reading improvement? ERP evidence from an intervention study

“…In contrast, NIMP who had persistent deficits in reading performance were marked by aberrant activation patterns throughout the reading network (Odegard et al, 2008; Davis et al, 2011), deficiencies in ERP measures (Molfese et al, 2013) and lower functional connectivity between reading-related brain areas (Farris et al, 2011). Furthermore, two longitudinal studies conducted by Simos et al (2005, 2007a) reported on similar spatial and temporal brain activation patterns in normal developing children and 6–8-year-old (Simos et al, 2005) and 8–10-year-old (Simos et al, 2007a) IMP after intervention, which was not observed in NIMP. However, Simos et al (2005, 2007a) did not report on pre-existing differences between IMP and NIMP.…”

“…However, studies examining whether there might be neurophysiological differences prior to receiving intervention between IMP and NIMP are less common. To the best of our knowledge only eight studies differentiated between IMP and NIMP (Simos et al, 2005, 2007a; Odegard et al, 2008; Davis et al, 2011; Farris et al, 2011; Rezaie et al, 2011a,b; Molfese et al, 2013). …”