The neural signature of orthographic–phonological binding in successful and failing reading development

Blomert, Leo

doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.003

Cited by 246 publications

(339 citation statements)

References 63 publications

(96 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

281

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This may have contributed to the specific role of working memory for binding between visual and auditory-verbal modalities in predicting early progress in learning to read that was observed in this study. While it remains to be seen whether this predictive relationship also emerges when examining the current tasks in the context of other languages with varying orthographic depth, we would note that the ability to associate visual with verbal information has also been shown to affect reading development in alphabetic language systems (e.g., Blomert, 2011;Hulme et al, 2007;Jones et al, 2013). Thus, we would expect that similar results would be observed across a range of populations and languages.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

“…It has been argued that this reported link reflects individualsÕ ability to form orthographic-phonological associations in long-term memory, and which in turn relates to reading development in children. Relatedly, evidence from imaging studies has demonstrated that a specific letter-speech sound binding deficit identified before the start of reading instruction may have contributed to later reading problems in dyslexia (Blomert, 2011). What remains to be clarified is how this initial binding ability is linked to integration of orthographic and phonological information in long-term memory.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating the developmental trajectory of the episodic buffer component of working memory and its relation to word recognition in children

Wang

Allen

Lee

et al. 2015

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The creation of temporary bound representation of information from different sources is one of the key abilities attributed to the episodic buffer component of working memory. Whereas the role of working memory in word learning has received substantial attention, very little is known about the link between the development of word recognition skills and the ability to bind information in the episodic buffer of working memory, and how it may develop with age.This study examined the performance of Grade 2 (8 yrs old) and Grade 3 (9 yrs old) children and young adults on a task designed to measure their ability to bind visual and auditory-verbal information in working memory. ChildrenÕs performance on this task significantly correlated with their word recognition skills even when chronological age, memory for individual elements, and other possible reading-related factors were taken into account. In addition, clear developmental trajectories were observed, with improvements in the ability to hold temporary bound information in working memory between Grades 2 and 3, and between the children and adult groups, that were independent from memory for the individual elements. These findings suggest that the capacity to temporarily bind novel auditory-verbal information to visual form in working memory is linked to the development of word recognition in children, and improves with age.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the developmental trajectory of the episodic buffer component of working memory and its relation to word recognition in children

Wang

Allen

Lee

et al. 2015

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To mention just a few, it has been argued that it is "widely agreed that developmental dyslexia is caused by a 'phonological core deficit'" (e.g. Goswami, 2003; and many others, see also Blomert, 2011;Olulade, Napoliello, & Eden, 2013;Saksida et al, 2016;Vellutino, Fletcher, Snowling, & Scanlon, 2004;Wimmer & Schurz, 2010, for recent discussions); that dyslexia is "a deficit in visuospatial attention, not in phonological processing" (Vidyasagar & Pammer, 2010); that "it is illogical to conclude that absence of evidence for some aspects of a magnocellular deficit in some dyslexics is evidence of its absence in all" (Stein, Talcott, & Walsh, 2000); that phonological and magnocellular deficit accounts both fail "to account for the full range of deficits established for dyslexic children … the full range of deficits might be accounted for in terms of a cerebellar deficit" (Nicolson, Fawcett, & Dean, 2001); and that "the cerebellum might stand unfairly accused, an innocent bystander in the processes responsible for disordered motor control in developmental dyslexia … the 'cerebellar' signs and symptoms associated with developmental dyslexia reflect a remote effect of neocortical perisylvian damage on cerebellar function" (Zeffiro & Eden, 2001). It has even been suggested that developmental dyslexia and specific language impairment are points on a continuum of learning disorders rather than distinct disabilities (Kamhi & Catts, 1986;cf.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distinguishing cause from effect – many deficits associated with developmental dyslexia may be a consequence of reduced and suboptimal reading experience

Huettig

Lachmann

Reis

et al. 2017

Language, Cognition and Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(2018) Distinguishing cause from effect -many deficits associated with developmental dyslexia may be a consequence of reduced and suboptimal reading experience, Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33:3, 333-350, DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2017 The cause of developmental dyslexia is still unknown despite decades of intense research. Many causal explanations have been proposed, based on the range of impairments displayed by affected individuals. Here we draw attention to the fact that many of these impairments are also shown by illiterate individuals who have not received any or very little reading instruction. We suggest that this fact may not be coincidental and that the performance differences of both illiterates and individuals with dyslexia compared to literate controls are, to a substantial extent, secondary consequences of either reduced or suboptimal reading experience or a combination of both. The search for the primary causes of reading impairments will make progress if the consequences of quantitative and qualitative differences in reading experience are better taken into account and not mistaken for the causes of reading disorders. We close by providing four recommendations for future research.ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

“…This left hemispheric specialization is thought to arise during children's reading acquisition through reentrant mapping of sound representations in the left temporal and frontal cortices to letter representations in ipsilateral posterior areas (3)(4)(5). Even though the exact onset of this leftward specialization is not known, this process appears to take considerable time during formal reading acquisition (6)(7)(8).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That is, a relatively high level of automatization in letter-speech sound associations appears necessary for left hemispheric posterior lateralization to print, taking time, cognitive resources, and explicit teaching. This process could occur either through phonological mapping (16) or audiovisual integration (7).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Left cortical specialization for visual letter strings predicts rudimentary knowledge of letter-sound association in preschoolers

Lochy¹,

Reybroeck²,

Rossion³

2016

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reading, one of the most important cultural inventions of human society, critically depends on posterior brain areas of the left hemisphere in proficient adult readers. In children, this left hemispheric cortical specialization for letter strings is typically detected only after approximately 1 y of formal schooling and reading acquisition. Here, we recorded scalp electrophysiological (EEG) brain responses in 5-y-old (n = 40) prereaders presented with letter strings appearing every five items in rapid streams of pseudofonts (6 items per second). Within 2 min of recording only, letter strings evoked a robust specific response over the left occipito-temporal cortex at the predefined frequency of 1.2 Hz (i.e., 6 Hz/5). Interindividual differences in the amplitude of this electrophysiological response are significantly related to letter knowledge, a preschool predictor of later reading ability. These results point to the high potential of this rapidly collected behavior-free measure to assess reading ability in developmental populations. These findings were replicated in a second experiment (n = 26 preschool children), where familiar symbols and line drawings of objects evoked right-lateralized and bilaterally specific responses, respectively, showing the specificity of the early left hemispheric dominance for letter strings. Collectively, these findings indicate that limited knowledge of print in young children, before formal education, is sufficient to develop specialized left lateralized neuronal circuits, thereby pointing to an early onset and rapid impact of left hemispheric reentrant sound mapping on posterior cortical development.A dult expert reading, a complex yet effortless and fast process (i.e., occurring at an average of 200 ms per word; ref. 1), critically depends on the left ventral occipito-temporal cortex (2). This left hemispheric specialization is thought to arise during children's reading acquisition through reentrant mapping of sound representations in the left temporal and frontal cortices to letter representations in ipsilateral posterior areas (3-5). Even though the exact onset of this leftward specialization is not known, this process appears to take considerable time during formal reading acquisition (6-8).Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) reveals the typical left lateralized adult-like brain pattern for letter strings only in proficient readers (ref. 9 for a metaanalysis) and in natural settings, significant left lateralization appears only when children have already acquired formal reading ability, approximately at 7 y of age (10). In developmental studies with direct measures of brain activity (electro/magneto-encephalography, EEG/MEG), the typical reading adult occipito-temporal response evoked by letter strings at approximately 200 ms after stimulus onset (i.e., N1 or N170; refs. 11 and 12) is absent in preschool children, even if they can already categorize or name letters. Typically, sensitivity to print has been shown after 1 y (13), or 1.5 y of schooling (14), thus, afte...

show abstract

The neural signature of orthographic–phonological binding in successful and failing reading development

Cited by 246 publications

References 63 publications

Evaluating the developmental trajectory of the episodic buffer component of working memory and its relation to word recognition in children

Evaluating the developmental trajectory of the episodic buffer component of working memory and its relation to word recognition in children

Distinguishing cause from effect – many deficits associated with developmental dyslexia may be a consequence of reduced and suboptimal reading experience

Left cortical specialization for visual letter strings predicts rudimentary knowledge of letter-sound association in preschoolers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About