↓ Skip to main content

What does the brain of children with developmental dyslexia tell us about reading improvement? ERP evidence from an intervention study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
130 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
What does the brain of children with developmental dyslexia tell us about reading improvement? ERP evidence from an intervention study
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, June 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00441
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sandra Hasko, Katarina Groth, Jennifer Bruder, Jürgen Bartling, Gerd Schulte-Körne

Abstract

Intervention is key to managing developmental dyslexia (DD), but not all children with DD benefit from treatment. Some children improve (improvers, IMP), whereas others do not improve (non-improvers, NIMP). Neurobiological differences between IMP and NIMP have been suggested, but studies comparing IMP and NIMP in childhood are missing. The present study examined whether ERP patterns change with treatment and differ between IMP and NIMP. We investigated the ERPs of 28 children with DD and 25 control children (CON) while performing a phonological lexical decision (PLD) task before and after a 6-month intervention. After intervention children with DD were divided into IMP (n = 11) and NIMP (n = 17). In the PLD-task children were visually presented with words, pseudohomophones, pseudowords, and false fonts and had to decide whether the presented stimulus sounded like an existing German word or not. Prior to intervention IMP showed higher N300 amplitudes over fronto-temporal electrodes compared to NIMP and CON and N400 amplitudes were attenuated in both IMP and NIMP compared to CON. After intervention N300 amplitudes of IMP were comparable to those of CON and NIMP. This suggests that the N300, which has been related to phonological access of orthographic stimuli and integration of orthographic and phonological representations, might index a compensatory mechanism or precursor that facilitates reading improvement. The N400, which is thought to reflect grapheme-phoneme conversion or the access to the orthographic lexicon increased in IMP from pre to post and was comparable to CON after intervention. Correlations between N300 amplitudes pre, growth in reading ability and N400 amplitudes post indicated that higher N300 amplitudes might be important for reading improvement and increase in N400 amplitudes. The results suggest that children with DD, showing the same cognitive profile might differ regarding their neuronal profile which could further influence reading improvement.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hungary 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 126 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 19%
Student > Master 20 15%
Researcher 19 15%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 23 18%
Unknown 21 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 44 34%
Neuroscience 19 15%
Linguistics 10 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 5%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 26 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 July 2014.
All research outputs
#6,323,075
of 24,620,113 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#2,476
of 7,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,800
of 232,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#115
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,620,113 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,521 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 232,982 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 257 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.