Role of Visual Attention in Cognitive Control of Oculomotor Readiness in Students with Reading Disabilities

Abstract

This study investigated eye movement and comprehension therapy in Grade 6 children with reading disabilities (RD). Both order of therapy and type of therapy were examined. Furthermore, the implications of visual attention in ameliorating reading disability are discussed. Thirty-one students with RD were identified using standardized reading comprehension tests. Eye movements were analyzed objectively using an infra-red recording device. Reading scores of participating children were 0.5 to 1 SD below the national mean. Testing took place before the start of therapy (T1) and was repeated after 12 weeks (T2) and 24 weeks (T3) of therapy. One group of students had eye movement therapy first, followed by comprehension therapy; in the other group, the order was reversed. Data were evaluated using a repeated measures MANOVA and post hoc tests. At T1, mean reading grade was 2 years below grade level, and eye movement scores were at about Grade 2 level. Mean growth in reading comprehension for the total sample was 2.6 years (p < .01) at T3; equally significant improvement was measured in eye movements (p < .01). Learning rate in reading comprehension improved from 60% (T1) to 400% (T3). Although within-group differences were statistically significant, between-group differences were not significant for comprehension or eye movements. Order of therapy (comprehension first or eye movements first) was not significant. Improvements in within-group scores for comprehension and eye movements were consistently significant at T2 and T3. Eye movement therapy improved eye movements and also resulted in significant gains in reading comprehension. Comprehension therapy likewise produced improvement both in eye movement efficiency and in reading comprehension. The results support the notion of a cognitive link among visual attention, oculomotor readiness, and reading comprehension.

Effect of oculomotor vision rehabilitation on the visual-evoked potential and visual attention in mild traumatic brain injury

“…First, the OVR-related aspects were directly trained and not the visual/general attentional aspects per se. Second, the findings of Solan et al [33,59] would be consistent with this conclusion. In children with oculomotor-based reading problems, they performed either oculomotor, cognitive (comprehension) or attentional training in three matched groups.…”

“…They found that all three types of training improved reading ability, but with the attentional training showing considerably lower gains than for either the oculomotor or cognitive ones. Such a study incorporating the test vehicles of the Solan et al [33,59] group should be performed to tease out more directly this important question in the mTBI population.…”

Training on Movement Figure-Ground Discrimination Remediates Low-Level Visual Timing Deficits in the Dorsal Stream, Improving High-Level Cognitive Functioning, Including Attention, Reading Fluency, and Working Memory

“…Some investigators hypothesize that a lack of synchronization in timing between magnocellular and parvocellular activations in dyslexics may prevent effective sequential processing, pattern analysis, and figure-ground discrimination, and hence impede development of efficient reading and attention skills (Stein and Walsh, 1997; Vidyasagar, 1999, 2012, 2013; Lawton, 2000, 2007, 2008, 2015, 2016; Stein, 2001). It is further possible that the dyslexic reader’s deficit in attentional focus (Vidyasagar, 1999, 2012; Solan et al, 2001; Valdois et al, 2004; Facoetti et al, 2006; Lawton, 2016) is another consequence of sluggish magnocellular neurons, preventing the linked parvocellular neurons from isolating and sequentially processing the relevant information needed for reading (Vidyasagar, 1999), and not from the information overload as proposed previously (Stuart et al, 2001). …”

Silent reading fluency: Implications for the assessment of adults with developmental dyslexia

“…Eye-movement recording data show a reader's difference in visual performance when reading orally and silently (Solan, Larson, Shelley-Tremblay, Ficarra, & Silverman, 2001). Reports of some students' performances in both oral reading and silent reading, show a loss of binocular coordination and accuracy in visual tracking when they read aloud as contrasted with their visual performance when reading silently.…”