Speech perception deficits and the effect of envelope-enhanced story listening combined with phonics intervention in pre-readers at risk for dyslexia

Abstract

Developmental dyslexia is considered to be most effectively addressed with preventive phonics-based interventions, including grapheme-phoneme coupling and blending exercises. These intervention types require intact speech perception abilities, given their large focus on exercises with auditorily presented phonemes. Yet some children with (a risk for) dyslexia experience problems in this domain due to a poorer sensitivity to rise times, i.e., rhythmic acoustic cues present in the speech envelope. As a result, the often subtle speech perception problems could potentially constrain an optimal response to phonics-based interventions in at-risk children. The current study therefore aimed (1) to extend existing research by examining the presence of potential speech perception deficits in pre-readers at cognitive risk for dyslexia when compared to typically developing peers and (2) to explore the added value of a preventive auditory intervention for at-risk pre-readers, targeting rise time sensitivity, on speech perception and other reading-related skills. To obtain the first research objective, we longitudinally compared speech-in-noise perception between 28 5-year-old pre-readers with and 30 peers without a cognitive risk for dyslexia during the second half of the third year of kindergarten. The second research objective was addressed by exploring growth in speech perception and other reading-related skills in an independent sample of 62 at-risk 5-year-old pre-readers who all combined a 12-week preventive phonics-based intervention (GraphoGame-Flemish) with an auditory story listening intervention. In half of the sample, story recordings contained artificially enhanced rise times (GG-FL_EE group, n = 31), while in the other half, stories remained unprocessed (GG-FL_NE group, n = 31; Clinical Trial Number S60962—https://www.uzleuven.be/nl/clinical-trial-center). Results revealed a slower speech-in-noise perception growth in the at-risk compared to the non-at-risk group, due to an emerged deficit at the end of kindergarten. Concerning the auditory intervention effects, both intervention groups showed equal growth in speech-in-noise perception and other reading-related skills, suggesting no boost of envelope-enhanced story listening on top of the effect of combining GraphoGame-Flemish with listening to unprocessed stories. These findings thus provide evidence for a link between speech perception problems and dyslexia, yet do not support the potential of the auditory intervention in its current form.

Sensory temporal sampling in time: an integrated model of the TSF and neural noise hypothesis as an etiological pathway for dyslexia

“…Effective temporal sampling of speech may be a fundamental path by which these cognitive representations are formed, and behavioral interventions which target the development of strong phonological representations—such as phonics—should therefore be the most beneficial for the largest proportion of children (Van Herck et al, 2022 ). Children with more severe deficits in auditory processing might not be as responsive to auditory phonics-based interventions, as suggested by Vanden Bempt et al ( 2022 ). Others might not respond to phonics training for other reasons, such as those who rely on unique cognitive strategies for word reading, such as imageability [considered an index of orthographic-semantic (O-S) mapping; see Siegelman et al, 2020 ].…”

Dynamics of cognitive predictors during reading acquisition in a sample of children overrepresented for dyslexia risk

“…While several intervention studies already found positive effects for PA (Ehri et al., 2001; Hulme et al., 2012), available evidence is more inconsistent with regard to the efficacy of RAN interventions (Kirby et al., 2010; Vander Stappen et al., 2020; Wolff, 2014). Experimental studies specific to SPIN have been scarce, but somewhat promising (Van Herck et al., 2021; Van Hirtum et al., 2019, 2021; Vanden Bempt et al., 2022), in line with other types of auditory interventions for struggling readers (Cancer & Antonietti, 2022). Notably, well‐controlled intervention studies are crucial to investigate the causal role of these factors formally.…”

Neural synchronization and intervention in pre‐readers who later on develop dyslexia

“…Hence, even though the current EE intervention might be more effective in adults with dyslexia who do demonstrate reduced neural synchronization, it seems suboptimal for pre‐reading children at risk for dyslexia. This is consistent with the study by Vanden Bempt, Van Herck, et al (2022) which also failed to demonstrate an EE‐driven effect on speech perception and other reading‐related skills in a largely overlapping population. Speech perception is strongly related to neural synchronization (Ghitza & Greenberg, 2009; Giraud & Poeppel, 2012a; Peelle & Davis, 2012), so the lack of an EE intervention effect on neural synchronization putatively explains the absence of a boosting effect on speech perception and related skills.…”

“…Such targeted interventions addressing the temporal processing deficit for example train auditory temporal processing and rhythm skills and have been shown to improve phonological and literacy development (Bhide et al, 2013; Cancer et al, 2021; Cancer & Antonietti, 2022; Degé & Schwarzer, 2011; Flaugnacco et al, 2015; Harrison et al, 2018). Another promising auditory intervention is the envelope enhancement (EE) intervention of Van Herck, Vanden Bempt, et al (2022), Vanden Bempt, Economou, et al (2022) and Vanden Bempt, Van Herck, et al (2022) in which children listen to natural speech of which the speech envelope is enhanced. EE was originally developed for use in cochlear implant users (Geurts & Wouters, 1999; Koning & Wouters, 2012, 2016) and specifically accentuates rise times in the speech envelope, which facilitates their detection.…”

“…The authors concluded that the EE intervention improved rise time discrimination at a crucial time in development, namely prior to the onset of reading instruction and during the most sensitive period for intervention (Ozernov‐Palchik & Gaab, 2016; Van Phan et al, 2021) and that this might give children at risk for dyslexia a head start at the start of reading acquisition. Despite its impact on rise time sensitivity (Van Herck, Vanden Bempt, et al, 2022), the EE intervention did not promote speech perception, phonological awareness or productive letter knowledge (Vanden Bempt, Van Herck, et al, 2022). However, the neural aspects of the EE intervention remain to be investigated.…”