Simple exposure is sufficient to sensitize the human visual system to a particular direction of motion, but the underlying mechanisms of this process are unclear. Here, in a passive perceptual learning task, we found that exposure to task-irrelevant motion improved sensitivity to the local motion directions within the stimulus, which are processed at low levels of the visual system. In contrast, task-irrelevant motion had no effect on sensitivity to the global motion direction, which is processed at higher levels. The improvement persisted for at least several months. These results indicate that when attentional influence is limited, lower-level motion processing is more receptive to long-term modification than higher-level motion processing in the visual cortex.

Most theories about the inheritance of hand preference assume that handedness is a unidimensional trait which forms a continuous distribution. This paper demonstrates that sampling a wide range of manual activities reveals dimensions of hand preference that are independent. 180 right handed and 110 left handed adults indicated their hand preference for 55 activities according to a five point scale. A Varimax Factor Analysis revealed four factors which accounted for 80 percent of the variance. Factor 3 was of special interest because it represented behaviors which rely upon the axial musculature and involve strength more than dexterity. Hand preference for items on this factor were less laterally biased than on factors which included such fine motor behaviors as writing or drawing. These results suggest that manual preference is governed by more than one neural system and that these systems may be independently lateralized.

It is unknown whether the abnormalities in brain structure and function observed in dyslexic readers are congenital or arise later in development. Analyzing the 2 components of gray matter volume separately may help in differentiating these possibilities. Gray matter volume is the product of cortical surface area, determined during prenatal brain development, and cortical thickness, determined during postnatal development. For this study, 16 adults with a history of phonological dyslexia and 16 age- and gender-matched controls underwent magnetic resonance imaging and an extensive battery of tests of reading-related skills. Cortical surface area and gray matter volume measures of the whole brain, the inferior frontal gyrus, and the fusiform gyrus were similarly related to phonological skills and a history of dyslexia. There was no relationship between cortical thickness and phonological skills or history of dyslexia. Because cortical surface area reflects cortical folding patterns determined prenatally, this suggests that brain differences in dyslexia are rooted in early cortical development and are not due to compensatory changes that occur during postnatal development and would be expected to influence cortical thickness. This study demonstrates the importance of examining the separate components of gray matter volume when studying developmental abnormalities.

Whether boys are more vulnerable than girls to reading disabilities (RD) is controversial. We review studies that were designed to minimize ascertainment bias in the selection of individuals with RD. These include population-based studies that identified children with RD by objective, unbiased methods and studies that examined the gender ratios among the affected relatives of those diagnosed with RD. We conclude that even when ascertainment biases are minimized, there is still a significant preponderance of boys with RD, although the gender ratio of the affected relatives of those with RD manifests the weakest male bias. Furthermore, we demonstrate that potentially confounding factors such as attentional or neurological problems, race, IQ, and severity of RD cannot account for the observed gender bias. We end with a clarion call to future researchers to (a) consider analyzing gender differences by means of more than one definition of RD, (b) compare gender ratios when boys and girls are ranked against the performance of their own gender as opposed to an average across genders, and (c) report group differences in variability and effect sizes of obtained gender ratios.