An Electrophysiological Study of Print Processing in Kindergarten: The Contribution of the Visual N1 as a Predictor of Reading Outcome

Abstract

Sensitivity to print is characterized by a left occipito-temporal negativity to words in the event-related potential N1. This sensitivity is modulated by reading skills and may thus represent a neural marker of reading competence. Here we studied the development of the N1 in regular and poor readers from preschool age to school age to test whether the amplitude of the N1 predicts children's reading outcomes. Our results suggest a predictive value of the print-sensitive negativity over the right hemisphere. Whether this N1 may serve as a biomarker to improve prognosis in preliterate children should be clarified in future studies. AbstractSensitivity to print is characterized by a left occipito-temporal negativity to words in the event-related potential N1. This sensitivity is modulated by reading skills and may thus represent a neural marker of reading competence. Here we studied the development of the N1 in regular and poor readers from preschool age to school age to test whether the amplitude of the N1 predicts children's reading outcomes.Our results suggest a predictive value of the print-sensitive negativity over the right hemisphere. Whether this N1 may serve as a biomarker to improve prognosis in preliterate children should be clarified in future studies.

N1 and P2 to words and wordlike stimuli in late elementary school children and adults

“…Instead, we have argued that our letter string versus false font string contrast is a more conservative measure of such coarse orthographic encoding (e.g., Zhao et al, ). Fourth and finally, consistent with some (e.g., Appelbaum et al, ; Grossi & Coch, ; Holcomb et al, ; Meng et al, ; Savill & Thierry, ) but not other (e.g., Brem et al, ; Maurer et al, ; Zhao et al, ) previous studies of N1 and P2, we have used an averaged mastoid reference, as with the N400 data previously reported for these same participants (Coch, ; Coch & Benoit, ). Overall, our findings do not seem incompatible with previous findings from studies employing a different reference.…”

“…A similar pattern is apparent in first graders: After a year of formal reading instruction, N1 peaks earlier to words and N1 amplitude differentiates words and pseudowords as compared to false font strings; further, the N1 amplitude difference between words and false font strings is correlated with word reading fluency and vocabulary measures (Eberhard‐Moscicka, Jost, Raith, & Maurer, ; see also Parviainen, Helenius, Poskiparta, Niemi, & Salmelin, ). In second grade, words continue to elicit a larger N1 than symbol strings in typically developing readers (e.g., Brem et al, ; Hasko, Groth, Bruder, Bartling, & Schulte‐Körne, ), with the difference in N1 amplitude correlated with reading speed (e.g., Maurer et al, ). Overall, coarse‐grained N1 processing appears to emerge early, with initial reading experiences in kindergarten and the primary grades.…”

“…In the adult ERP literature, the early posterior component N1 has been interpreted as an index of specialization for word processing (e.g., McCandliss, Cohen, & Dehaene, ), and the posterior P2 has been associated with word processing, as well (e.g., Savill & Thierry, ). A number of ERP investigations have considered N1 development in beginning readers (e.g., Brem et al, ; Maurer et al, ) and adolescents (e.g., Brem et al, ; Kronschnabel, Schmid, Maurer, & Brandies, ), but curiously few have addressed the time in between. Here, we investigated the development of word processing as indexed by the N1 and P2 between beginning and fully fluent reading, in late elementary students, by recording ERPs to words, pseudowords, nonpronounceable letter strings, and false font strings.…”

Neural initialization of audiovisual integration in prereaders at varying risk for developmental dyslexia

“…So far, numerous studies have shown that 34–66% of children at familial risk for dyslexia will develop future reading problems [Blomert and Willems, ; Pennington and Lefly, ; Scarborough, ; Snowling et al, ]. Early characterization of children at risk, who will develop dyslexia, is an important goal [Bach et al, ; Brem et al, ; Guttorm et al, ; Hoeft et al, ; Maurer et al, ; Snowling et al, ] and would allow for early and targeted prevention.…”

“…This divergence is evident in dyslexic children and adults as a reduction of the automatized electrophysiological response triggered by the presentation of a deviant stimulus after 100–250 ms [Froyen et al, ; Zarić et al, 2014]. Furthermore, poor reading children, including dyslexics, exhibit a diminished visual occipitotemporal N1 response for words at 164–272 ms after two years of formal reading training [Brem et al, ; Maurer et al, ]. Given that this print sensitivity develops with grapheme‐phoneme correspondence learning in prereading children [Brem et al, ], it is likely that hampered letter‐speech sound integration in dyslexic children affects the development of print sensitivity.…”