Is the impaired N170 print tuning specific to developmental dyslexia? A matched reading-level study with poor readers and dyslexics

Mahé, Gwendoline; Bonnefond, Anne; Doignon-Camus, Nadège

doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2013.09.012

Cited by 29 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, there are lexical decision studies showing the reversed pattern in the late N1 (i.e. larger activation for words than pseudowords; Mahé et al, 2012;Mahé, Bonnefond, & Doignon-Camus, 2013;Rosazza, Cai, Minati, Paulignan, & Nazir, 2009). As the lexical decision tasks in these studies did not only include words and pseudowords, but also consonant strings (Mahé et al, 2012(Mahé et al, , 2013Rosazza et al 2009) and symbols (Mahé et al, 2012(Mahé et al, , 2013, lexicality effects in the N1 may not only be influenced by task demands, but also by the context.…”

Section: Lexicality Effectsfound Only For Adults' Native Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

“…larger activation for words than pseudowords; Mahé et al, 2012;Mahé, Bonnefond, & Doignon-Camus, 2013;Rosazza, Cai, Minati, Paulignan, & Nazir, 2009). As the lexical decision tasks in these studies did not only include words and pseudowords, but also consonant strings (Mahé et al, 2012(Mahé et al, , 2013Rosazza et al 2009) and symbols (Mahé et al, 2012(Mahé et al, , 2013, lexicality effects in the N1 may not only be influenced by task demands, but also by the context. Hence, interactions between task and context may potentially explain some of the null effects for word-pseudoword differences in several previous studies (Araújo et al, 2012;Bentin et al, 1999;Kast, Elmer, Jancke, & Meyer, 2010;Maurer et al, 2005a) and shall thus be addressed in future investigations.…”

Section: Lexicality Effectsfound Only For Adults' Native Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Temporal dynamics of early visual word processing – Early versus late N1 sensitivity in children and adults

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the course of reading development children become familiar with letter strings and learn to distinguish between lexical and non-lexical items. In previous studies, the N1 component of the ERP was shown to reflect print tuning but also to be sensitive to lexical effects. It remains unclear, however, whether these two aspects of orthographic processing occur at the same time or in different time windows during the lengthy N1 component. Moreover, it is unclear whether these processes develop late or occur already at early stages of literacy acquisition and whether this is similar for native languages and languages acquired later in life. To address these questions, 27 children were tested longitudinally, i.e. before (mean: 7.6 years) and after one year of classroom-based English instruction. Additionally, 22 adult speakers of English as a foreign language (mean: 25.1 years) were investigated. A 128-channel EEG was recorded while participants performed a one-back task with native German words, English words, pseudowords and false-font strings. The event-related EEG analysis of early and late N1 phases revealed early effects related to print tuning and late effects related to lexical processing in the native, but not in the second language of adult readers. In the absence of lexicality effects in children, print tuning effects were found across both early and late N1 segments. The temporally distinct N1 sensitivities to print and lexicality reflect temporal dynamics of visual word processing, which seem to depend on reading expertise or maturation.

show abstract

Section: Lexicality Effectsfound Only For Adults' Native Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Lexicality Effectsfound Only For Adults' Native Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal dynamics of early visual word processing – Early versus late N1 sensitivity in children and adults

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A number of fMRI studies have focused on the neural correlates associated with different levels of reading skill in hearing people, most notably in the area of dyslexia (Boets et al, 2013; Hasko et al, 2013; Mahé et al, 2013; Richlan et al, 2011; Sun et al, 2010; van der Mark et al, 2009). As mentioned earlier, a few recent studies examined the neural circuitry of reading in deaf adults (Aparicio et al, 2007; Corina et al, 2013; Emmorey et al, 2013, 2016; Wang et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Orthographic and phonological selectivity across the reading system in deaf skilled readers

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People who are born deaf often have difficulty learning to read. Recently, several studies have examined the neural substrates involved in reading in deaf people and found a left lateralized reading system similar to hearing people involving temporo-parietal, inferior frontal, and ventral occipito-temporal cortices. Previous studies in typical hearing readers show that within this reading network there are separate regions that specialize in processing orthography and phonology. We used fMRI rapid adaptation in deaf adults who were skilled readers to examine neural selectivity in three functional ROIs in the left hemisphere: temporoparietal cortex (TPC), inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), and the visual word form area (VWFA). Results show that in deaf skilled readers, the left VWFA showed selectivity for orthography similar to what has been reported for hearing readers, the TPC showed less sensitivity to phonology than previously reported for hearing readers using the same paradigm, and the IFG showed selectivity to orthography, but not phonology (similar to what has been reported previously for hearing readers). These results provide evidence that while skilled deaf readers demonstrate coarsely tuned phonological representations in the TPC, they develop finely tuned representations for the orthography of written words in the VWFA and IFG. This result suggests that phonological tuning in the TPC may have little impact on the neural network associated with skilled reading for deaf adults.

show abstract

“…A persistent deficit in left N170 print tuning has been found in developmental dyslexia (Mahé et al 2012), however, it was not clear whether it is the result of poor reading skills or is specific to developmental dyslexia. Therefore, Mahé et al (2013) examined three groups of native French speaking adults: (1) With former clinical diagnosis of developmental dyslexia, without comorbidity, (2) readinglevel matched functional illiterate individuals (termed as poor reading adults), and (3) age-matched skilled readers. When comparing the N170 induced by written material (words, non-words, consonant strings, and symbol strings, across categories) during a lexical decision task (i.e., participants must decide if the stimulus is a word or not) with that induced by symbol (non-letter) strings, skilled readers and functional illiterate individuals differed from each other and showed a larger N170 for written material than for symbol strings.…”

Section: Narrative Synthesis Of the Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Functional illiteracy and developmental dyslexia: looking for common roots. A systematic review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A considerable amount of the population in more economically developed countries are functionally illiterate (i.e., low literate). Despite some years of schooling and basic reading skills, these individuals cannot properly read and write and, as a consequence have problems to understand even short texts. An often-discussed approach (Greenberg et al. 1997) assumes weak phonological processing skills coupled with untreated developmental dyslexia as possible causes of functional illiteracy. Although there is some data suggesting commonalities between low literacy and developmental dyslexia, it is still not clear, whether these reflect shared consequences (i.e., cognitive and behavioral profile) or shared causes. The present systematic review aims at exploring the similarities and differences identified in empirical studies investigating both functional illiterate and developmental dyslexic samples. Nine electronic databases were searched in order to identify all quantitative studies published in English or German. Although a broad search strategy and few limitations were applied, only 5 studies have been identified adequate from the resulting 9269 references. The results point to the lack of studies directly comparing functional illiterate with developmental dyslexic samples. Moreover, a huge variance has been identified between the studies in how they approached the concept of functional illiteracy, particularly when it came to critical categories such the applied definition, terminology, criteria for inclusion in the sample, research focus, and outcome measures. The available data highlight the need for more direct comparisons in order to understand what extent functional illiteracy and dyslexia share common characteristics.

show abstract

Is the impaired N170 print tuning specific to developmental dyslexia? A matched reading-level study with poor readers and dyslexics

Cited by 29 publications

References 37 publications

Temporal dynamics of early visual word processing – Early versus late N1 sensitivity in children and adults

Temporal dynamics of early visual word processing – Early versus late N1 sensitivity in children and adults

Orthographic and phonological selectivity across the reading system in deaf skilled readers

Functional illiteracy and developmental dyslexia: looking for common roots. A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About