Non-right handedness is associated with language and reading impairments

Abbondanza, Filippo; Dale, Philip S.; Wang, Carol; Hayiou‐Thomas, Marianna E.; Toseeb, Umar; koomar, Tanner; Wigg, Karen; Ye, Feng; Price, Kaitlyn M.; Kerr, E. A.; Guger, Sharon; Lovett, Maureen W.; Strug, Lisa J.; Bergen, Elsje van; Dolan, Conor V.; Tomblin, Bruce; Moll, Kristina; Schulte‐Körne, Gerd; Neuhoff, Nina; Warnke, Andreas; Fisher, Simon E.; Barr, Cathy L.; Michaelson, Jacob J.; Boomsma, Dorret I.; Snowling, Margaret J.; Hulme, Charles; Whitehouse, Andrew; Pennell, Craig E.; Newbury, Dianne F.; Stein, John; Talcott, Joel B.; Bishop, Dorothy V. M.; Paracchini, Silvia

doi:10.31234/osf.io/74jsd

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interestingly, the historical overview illustrates how attention on dyslexia benchmarks moves in spirals: new knowledge discharges old knowledge then to be restored and reused. Terms such as “visual”, “auditive”, and “phonological” and “laterality”, have been redefined across cultures and recirculated by new methods of assessment (see, e.g., Refs [ 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 ]).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to James and Engelhardt, handwriting may facilitate reading acquisition in young children [ 70 ]. A recent large metastudy concluded that there is an association between non-right handedness and reading and language impairments due to “shared biological pathways underlying brain lateralization, handedness, and cognitive functions” [ 63 ]. This points to research on keyboard writing using both hands and assessing if this has any long-term effect on language lateralization of the brain.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Trends in Dyslexia Research during the Period 1950 to 2020—Theories, Definitions, and Publications

Helland

2022

Brain Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction. The focus of the present paper is on (1) how dyslexia research and hence definitions have developed during the period 1950–2020 and includes (2) a database search of scientific publications on dyslexia during the same period. The focus is on the definitions of dyslexia and the organization of the network search based on the causal four-level model by Morton and Frith. Method. (1) The definitions are presented in accordance with a historic review of dyslexia research from 1950 to 2020 and based on (2) Google Scholar counts of publications on dyslexia, on defining dyslexia, on dyslexia at the four levels (symptomatic, cognitive, biological, environmental), and by areas (sensorimotor, comorbidity). Finally, a percentage calculation shows the relative development within each level and area by decennium (1950–1960, 1960–1970, 1970–1980, 1990–2000, 2002–2010, 2010–2020). Results. (1) Of the seven definitions presented, only the definition by the BDA 2007 included the four levels of the causal model. (2) The number of publications increased substantially over the period. However, relatively few publications have defined dyslexia. An increase in publications from 1950 to 2020 was seen across the four levels and two areas—however, with an alteration in the thematic focus over this time span. Summary. Defining dyslexia has still not reached a consensus. This uncertainty may explain why only one of the seven definitions proved satisfactory according to the four-level model. Along with the general increase in research, publications on dyslexia have increased accordingly during the period 1950 to 2020. Although the symptomatic level has played a dominant role over the whole period, thematic shifts have been seen over these 70 years. In particular, a substantial thematic shift was seen by the turn of the millennium. There has been a relative increase in the focus on literacy at the symptomatic level, on phonological awareness at the cognitive level, in gender at the biological level, and second language learning as comorbidities. However, increases in counts are not alone a valid indication of scientific progress. In particular, the lack of definitional criteria as a basis for participant and method selection should attract much more focus in future studies. The present study underlines the multifactorial nature of dyslexia, as evidenced by a substantial increase in the number of publications on the subject. It is a challenge for future research to continuously use and possibly redefine dyslexia definitions in line with such standards.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trends in Dyslexia Research during the Period 1950 to 2020—Theories, Definitions, and Publications

Helland

2022

Brain Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…asymmetry of a language area in the dyslexic brain, at least in boys and men. And, at least in boys, there is a deviation in the distribution of planum asymmetry, which, together with reports of an abnormal distribution of hand dominance in the dyslexic population (Abbondanza et al, 2022), make modeling asymmetry and laterality in animals potentially productive.…”

Section: Endophenotypes To Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is a literature about non-right handedness ( Abbondanza et al, 2022 ) and right hemisphere activation ( Pugh et al, 2000 ) for language tasks in dyslexic populations that indicate an aberration in cerebral dominance. Also, a few studies have been published on the issue of structural planum temporale asymmetry as seen in in vivo imaging studies (for a review, see Shapleske et al, 1999 ).…”

Section: Endophenotypes To Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The difference between the Geschwind and Levitsky and the Altarelli et al (2014) findings is not understood, although both findings support an anomaly in the manifestation of asymmetry of a language area in the dyslexic brain, at least in boys and men. And, at least in boys, there is a deviation in the distribution of planum asymmetry, which, together with reports of an abnormal distribution of hand dominance in the dyslexic population ( Abbondanza et al, 2022 ), make modeling asymmetry and laterality in animals potentially productive.…”

Section: Endophenotypes To Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Animal models of developmental dyslexia

Galaburda

2022

Front. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As some critics have stated, the term “developmental dyslexia” refers to a strictly human disorder, relating to a strictly human capacity – reading – so it cannot be modeled in experimental animals, much less so in lowly rodents. However, two endophenotypes associated with developmental dyslexia are eminently suitable for animal modeling: Cerebral Lateralization, as illustrated by the association between dyslexia and non-righthandedness, and Cerebrocortical Dysfunction, as illustrated by the described abnormal structural anatomy and/or physiology and functional imaging of the dyslexic cerebral cortex. This paper will provide a brief review of these two endophenotypes in human beings with developmental dyslexia and will describe the animal work done in my laboratory and that of others to try to shed light on the etiology of and neural mechanisms underlying developmental dyslexia. Some thought will also be given to future directions of the research.

show abstract