2016
DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhw095
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Development of Tract-Specific White Matter Pathways During Early Reading Development in At-Risk Children and Typical Controls

Abstract: Developmental dyslexia is a neurodevelopmental disorder with a strong genetic basis. Previous studies observed white matter alterations in the left posterior brain regions in adults and school-age children with dyslexia. However, no study yet has examined the development of tract-specific white matter pathways from the pre-reading to the fluent reading stage in children at familial risk for dyslexia (FHD+) versus controls (FHD-). This study examined white matter integrity at pre-reading, beginning, and fluent … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

21
179
2
2

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 107 publications
(204 citation statements)
references
References 149 publications
(238 reference statements)
21
179
2
2
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, one study [37] provides evidence that poor access to phonological representations, arguably reflected in reduced functional connectivity with temporoparietal regions, is impaired, while phonological representations remain intact, although this study did not examine the detailed properties of phoneme encoding (as has been done in other studies [87]). RD risk mutations in DCDC2 have also been linked to structural connectivity within the reading network [25] and children at-risk for RD have persistently reduced temporoparietal white matter integrity [99]. While these studies do highlight the importance of connectivity in RD, and the need for systems-levels approaches to studying RD, these results are not necessarily incompatible with the neural noise hypothesis.…”
Section: Counter-evidence To the Neural Noise Hypothesis And Consideratmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, one study [37] provides evidence that poor access to phonological representations, arguably reflected in reduced functional connectivity with temporoparietal regions, is impaired, while phonological representations remain intact, although this study did not examine the detailed properties of phoneme encoding (as has been done in other studies [87]). RD risk mutations in DCDC2 have also been linked to structural connectivity within the reading network [25] and children at-risk for RD have persistently reduced temporoparietal white matter integrity [99]. While these studies do highlight the importance of connectivity in RD, and the need for systems-levels approaches to studying RD, these results are not necessarily incompatible with the neural noise hypothesis.…”
Section: Counter-evidence To the Neural Noise Hypothesis And Consideratmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other associations have been found between fractional anisotropy of the superior longitudinal fasciculus, and working memory (Vestergaard et al, 2011; Rizio & Diaz, 2016), executive function and sustained attention in children (Klaborg et al, 2013; Urger et al, 2015), and children’s reading development (Travis et al, 2016; Wang et al, 2016). …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…For example, one study [37] provides evidence that poor access to phonological representations, arguably reflected in reduced functional connectivity with temporoparietal regions, is impaired, while phonological representations remain intact, although this study did not examine the detailed properties of phoneme encoding (as has been done in other studies [87]). RD risk mutations in DCDC2 have also been linked to structural connectivity within the reading network [25] and children at risk for RD have persistently reduced temporoparietal white matter integrity [99]. While these studies highlight the importance of connectivity in RD and the need for systems-levels approaches to studying RD, these results are not necessarily incompatible with the neural noise hypothesis.…”
Section: Counter-evidence To the Neural Noise Hypothesis And Considermentioning
confidence: 99%