Children with dyslexia show a reduced processing benefit from bimodal speech information compared to their typically developing peers

Schaadt, Gesa; Meer, Elke van der; Pannekamp, Ann; Oberecker, Regine; Männel, Claudia

doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.01.013

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 81 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A passive audio–visual oddball paradigm was constructed from the syllables /pa/ and /ga/, because the phonemes /p/ and /g/ distinguish between different word meanings in German (e.g., /platt/− flat vs. /glatt/– slippery ) and have been shown to be discriminable both auditorily and visually ( Schaadt et al 2015 , 2016 , 2019 ). Children were presented with a video of a frequently occurring standard mouth movement while hearing either the congruently produced syllable or a mismatching syllable.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aberrant Prestimulus Oscillations in Developmental Dyslexia Support an Underlying Attention Shifting Deficit

Meyer

Schaadt

2020

Cerebral Cortex Communications

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract Developmental dyslexia (DD) impairs reading and writing acquisition in 5–10% of children, compromising schooling, academic success, and everyday adult life. DD associates with reduced phonological skills, evident from a reduced auditory mismatch negativity (MMN) in the electroencephalogram (EEG). It was argued that such phonological deficits are secondary to an underlying deficit in the shifting of attention to upcoming speech sounds. Here, we tested whether the aberrant MMN in individuals with DD is a function of EEG correlates of prestimulus attention shifting; based on prior findings, we focused prestimulus analyses on alpha-band oscillations. We administered an audio–visual oddball paradigm to school children with and without DD. Children with DD showed EEG markers of deficient attention switching (i.e., increased prestimulus alpha-band intertrial phase coherence [ITPC]) to precede and predict their reduced MMN—aberrantly increased ITPC predicted an aberrantly reduced MMN. In interaction, ITPC and MMN predicted reading abilities, such that poor readers showed both high ITPC and a reduced MMN, the reverse being true in good readers. Prestimulus ITPC may be an overlooked biomarker of deficient attention shifting in DD. The findings support the proposal that an attention shifting deficit underlies phonological deficits in DD, entailing new opportunities for targeted intervention.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aberrant Prestimulus Oscillations in Developmental Dyslexia Support an Underlying Attention Shifting Deficit

Meyer

Schaadt

2020

Cerebral Cortex Communications

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…MMN; Näätänen, Gaillard, & Mäntysalo, 1978) have been predominantly observed at infant age (Fellman et al, 2004;Friederici, Friedrich, & Weber, 2002;He, Hotson, & Trainor, 2009), but have also been found in older age groups. The latter cases, however, have mostly been associated with impaired language development, such as developmental dyslexia (Schaadt et al, 2015;Schaadt, van der Meer, Pannekamp, Oberecker, & Männel, 2018) or specific language impairment (Ahmmed, Clarke, & Adams, 2008). Moreover, positive mismatch responses have been observed under difficult stimulus discrimination conditions, driven by particular stimulus characteristics (Morr, Shafer, Kreuzer, & Kurtzberg, 2002;Ruhnau, Wetzel, Widmann, & Schröger, 2010;Shafer, Yu, & Datta, 2010) or long inter-stimulus intervals, resulting in weaker auditory short-term memory traces (Ahmmed et al, 2008;Schröger & Winkler, 1995).…”

Section: Age Differences In Pitch Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developmental changes in automatic rule‐learning mechanisms across early childhood

Mueller

Friederici

Männel

2018

Developmental Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Infants' ability to learn complex linguistic regularities from early on has been revealed by electrophysiological studies indicating that 3-month-olds, but not adults, can automatically detect non-adjacent dependencies between syllables. While different ERP responses in adults and infants suggest that both linguistic rule learning and its link to basic auditory processing undergo developmental changes, systematic investigations of the developmental trajectories are scarce. In the present study, we assessed 2- and 4-year-olds' ERP indicators of pitch discrimination and linguistic rule learning in a syllable-based oddball design. To test for the relation between auditory discrimination and rule learning, ERP responses to pitch changes were used as predictor for potential linguistic rule-learning effects. Results revealed that 2-year-olds, but not 4-year-olds, showed ERP markers of rule learning. Although, 2-year-olds' rule learning was not dependent on differences in pitch perception, 4-year-old children demonstrated a dependency, such that those children who showed more pronounced responses to pitch changes still showed an effect of rule learning. These results narrow down the developmental decline of the ability for automatic linguistic rule learning to the age between 2 and 4 years, and, moreover, point towards a strong modification of this change by auditory processes. At an age when the ability of automatic linguistic rule learning phases out, rule learning can still be observed in children with enhanced auditory responses. The observed interrelations are plausible causes for age-of-acquisition effects and inter-individual differences in language learning.

show abstract

“…Contrary to Schaadt et al (2019), one study (Pekkola et al, 2006) reported an increase rather than a reduction in activation of brain areas presumed to support speech in a dyslexic group when watching a movie of a person whose mouth movements did not correspond to heard auditory input. This activation co-varied with phonological processing abilities (worse phonological processing corresponded to increased activation), interpreted as reflecting "dyslexic readers heightened reliance on motor-articulatory and visual speech processing strategies, possibly as a compensatory mechanism to overcome linguistic perceptual difficulties" (pg.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Facial speech processing in children with and without dyslexia

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What role does the presence of facial speech play for children with dyslexia? Current literature proposes two distinctive claims. One claim states that children with dyslexia make less use of visual information from the mouth during speech processing due to a deficit in recruitment of audiovisual areas. An opposing claim suggests that children with dyslexia are in fact reliant on such information in order to compensate for auditory/phonological impairments. The current paper aims at directly testing these contrasting hypotheses (here referred to as “mouth insensitivity” versus “mouth reliance”) in school-age children with and without dyslexia, matched on age and listening comprehension. Using eye tracking, in Study 1, we examined how children look at the mouth across conditions varying in speech processing demands. The results did not indicate significant group differences in looking at the mouth. However, correlation analyses suggest potentially important distinctions within the dyslexia group: those children with dyslexia who are better readers attended more to the mouth while presented with a person’s face in a phonologically demanding condition. In Study 2, we examined whether the presence of facial speech cues is functionally beneficial when a child is encoding written words. The results indicated lack of overall group differences on the task, although those with less severe reading problems in the dyslexia group were more accurate when reading words that were presented with articulatory facial speech cues. Collectively, our results suggest that children with dyslexia differ in their “mouth reliance” versus “mouth insensitivity,” a profile that seems to be related to the severity of their reading problems.

show abstract

Children with dyslexia show a reduced processing benefit from bimodal speech information compared to their typically developing peers

Cited by 10 publications

References 81 publications

Aberrant Prestimulus Oscillations in Developmental Dyslexia Support an Underlying Attention Shifting Deficit

Aberrant Prestimulus Oscillations in Developmental Dyslexia Support an Underlying Attention Shifting Deficit

Developmental changes in automatic rule‐learning mechanisms across early childhood

Facial speech processing in children with and without dyslexia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About