↓ Skip to main content

The relationship of phonological ability, speech perception, and auditory perception in adults with dyslexia

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
twitter
19 X users
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
175 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
The relationship of phonological ability, speech perception, and auditory perception in adults with dyslexia
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, July 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00482
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeremy M. Law, Maaike Vandermosten, Pol Ghesquiere, Jan Wouters

Abstract

This study investigated whether auditory, speech perception, and phonological skills are tightly interrelated or independently contributing to reading. We assessed each of these three skills in 36 adults with a past diagnosis of dyslexia and 54 matched normal reading adults. Phonological skills were tested by the typical threefold tasks, i.e., rapid automatic naming, verbal short-term memory and phonological awareness. Dynamic auditory processing skills were assessed by means of a frequency modulation (FM) and an amplitude rise time (RT); an intensity discrimination task (ID) was included as a non-dynamic control task. Speech perception was assessed by means of sentences and words-in-noise tasks. Group analyses revealed significant group differences in auditory tasks (i.e., RT and ID) and in phonological processing measures, yet no differences were found for speech perception. In addition, performance on RT discrimination correlated with reading but this relation was mediated by phonological processing and not by speech-in-noise. Finally, inspection of the individual scores revealed that the dyslexic readers showed an increased proportion of deviant subjects on the slow-dynamic auditory and phonological tasks, yet each individual dyslexic reader does not display a clear pattern of deficiencies across the processing skills. Although our results support phonological and slow-rate dynamic auditory deficits which relate to literacy, they suggest that at the individual level, problems in reading and writing cannot be explained by the cascading auditory theory. Instead, dyslexic adults seem to vary considerably in the extent to which each of the auditory and phonological factors are expressed and interact with environmental and higher-order cognitive influences.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 175 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 3%
United States 2 1%
Spain 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 166 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 21%
Student > Master 30 17%
Researcher 22 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 7%
Other 9 5%
Other 29 17%
Unknown 35 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 50 29%
Neuroscience 24 14%
Social Sciences 11 6%
Linguistics 10 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 5%
Other 25 14%
Unknown 47 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 56. 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 16 January 2024.
All research outputs
#747,772
of 25,175,727 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#332
of 7,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,938
of 233,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#17
of 253 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,175,727 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,638 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 233,954 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 253 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.