The similarities between normal readers and developmental and acquired dyslexics

Bryant, Peter; Impey, Lawrence

doi:10.1016/0010-0277(86)90007-7

Cited by 127 publications

(96 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This effect was also significant in both analyses: F(2, 28) = 6.01, p < .01 by subjects, and F(2, 57) = 7.61, p < .01 by items. irrespective of reading level or reading skill (see also, Bosman, 1994;Bosman & de Groot, 1996;Bryant & Impey, 1986;Murphy & Pollatsek, 1994;Szeszulski & Manis, 1987).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The /O/ in OVER is different from the /O/ in OTTER: Phonological effects in children with and without dyslexia.

Bosman¹,

Leerdam²,

Gelder³

2000

Developmental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

First-letter naming was used to investigate the role of phonology in printed word perception in children with and without dyslexia. In 2 experiments, all children showed faster first-letter-naming times in a congruent condition than in an incongruent condition, which suggests that phonology is a fundamental constraint in the printed word perception of readers of all levels and all skills. An explanation in terms of a recurrent network put forward by G. C. Van Orden and S. D. Goldinger (1996) is discussed to account for the apparent paradox in the reading behavior of readers with dyslexia, that is, that in first-letter naming, dyslexic readers appear to show phonological congruity effects, whereas in pseudoword reading, their phonological knowledge appears to be deficient or absent.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The /O/ in OVER is different from the /O/ in OTTER: Phonological effects in children with and without dyslexia.

Bosman¹,

Leerdam²,

Gelder³

2000

Developmental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There was also critique regarding whether the same theoretical model can (or should) be used for both acquired dyslexics, who had developed reading and spelling abilities and lost them after brain injury, and developmental dyslexics, who had never been able to acquire literacy skills (Ellis, 1985). A number of authors have argued that the evidence for the discrete subtypes is contentious, or else can be explained in terms of individual differences in terms of instruction or intervention (see for example, Bryant & Impey, 1986;Wilding, 1990;Thomson, 1999;Sprenger-Charolles & Serniclaes, 2003;Stanovich et al, 1997;SprengerCharolles et al, 2011). Douklias, Masterson and Hanley (2009) reported cases of phonological and surface developmental dyslexia in Greek.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Varieties of developmental dyslexia in Greek children

Niolaki¹,

Terzopoulos²

2014

Writing Systems Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This poses two problems. On the one hand, since the paper by Bryant and Impey (1986) reading level has been known to have an impact on vocabulary size and phonemic awareness, for instance. Therefore, differences in these skills between dyslexics and CA controls may just be a consequence of the lower reading level of the dyslexics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability and prevalence of an atypical development of phonological skills in French-speaking dyslexics

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present study, conducted with French-speaking children, we examined the reliability (group study) and the prevalence (multiple-case study) of dyslexics' phonological deficits in reading and reading-related skills in comparison with Reading Level (RL) controls. All dyslexics with no comorbidity problem schooled in a special institution for children with severe reading deficits were included in the study (N = 15; Chronological Age [CA]: 111 +8 months; RL: 80 +3 months). For the group study, the 15 dyslexics were matched pairwise on reading level, non-verbal IQ, and gender to 15 younger RL controls (CA: 85 +4 months). For the multiple-case study, the RL control group included 86 average readers (CA: 83 +4 months; RL: 85 +5 months). To assess the relative efficiency of the sublexical (or phonological) and lexical reading procedures, we relied on two comparisons: pseudowords vs. high-frequency regular words (the comparison mainly used in languages with a shallow orthography); and pseudowords vs. high-frequency irregular words (the comparison mainly used with English-speaking dyslexics), pseudowords and irregular words being either short or long. The dyslexics' skills in the domains supposed to explain their reading deficit were also examined: phonemic awareness, phonological short-term memory and rapid naming. In the group study, the dyslexics lagged behind the RL controls only when they were required to read long pseudowords. The results of the multiple-case study indicated that the prevalence of this deficit was high (the accuracy scores of all but 2 of the 15 dyslexics being more than 1 SD below the RL control mean), and that deficits in phonemic awareness were more prevalent (7 cases) than deficits in phonological memory (1 case) and in rapid naming (2 cases). Three unexpected results were observed in the group study: the difference between regular words and pseudowords (to the detriment of pseudowords) was not greater for the dyslexics; the difference between irregular words and pseudowords (to the benefit of pseudowords) was more significant for the RL controls; and there were no significant differences between the groups in reading-related skills. To explain these results, the severity of the dyslexics' reading deficit and the remediation they have benefited from must be taken into account. In addition, the fact that the outcomes of the comparison between pseudoword vs. regular or irregular word reading were not the same will make it possible to understand some discrepancies between studies carried out either in English or in a language with a shallower orthography (French, for instance).

show abstract

The similarities between normal readers and developmental and acquired dyslexics

Cited by 127 publications

References 16 publications

The /O/ in OVER is different from the /O/ in OTTER: Phonological effects in children with and without dyslexia.

The /O/ in OVER is different from the /O/ in OTTER: Phonological effects in children with and without dyslexia.

Varieties of developmental dyslexia in Greek children

Reliability and prevalence of an atypical development of phonological skills in French-speaking dyslexics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About