4.5 Article

Universality of categorical perception deficit in developmental dyslexia: an investigation of Mandarin Chinese tones

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHILD PSYCHOLOGY AND PSYCHIATRY
卷 53, 期 8, 页码 874-882

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02528.x

关键词

Dyslexia; categorical perception; lexical tones; event-related potential; mismatch negativity

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [30870758]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Beijing [7092051]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
  4. National Science Foundation of USA [OISE-0968369]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: While previous studies have shown that children affected by dyslexia exhibit a deficit in categorical perception of segmental features in alphabetic languages, it remains unclear whether the categorical perception deficit generalizes to nonalphabetic languages at the suprasegmental level. In this study, we investigated the occurrence of categorical perception deficit in Mandarin lexical tones in Chinese children with dyslexia. Methods: Both behavioral and electrophysiological measures were taken to compare Chinese dyslexic children with age-matched controls. Auditory event-related potentials were collected with a passive listening oddball paradigm. Results: Behavioral data showed that dyslexic children perceived lexical tone contrasts less categorically and less precisely than age-matched controls. Consistent with the behavioral data, the across-category tone contrast elicited larger mismatch negativity than the within-category distinction in the left hemisphere for the age-matched controls but not for the dyslexic children. Conclusion: The behavioral and electrophysiological results demonstrate impaired categorical perception of lexical tones in Chinese children with dyslexia. Our findings support the hypothesis that children affected by dyslexia have a general deficit in categorical perception of speech, which generalizes to nonalphabetic languages at the suprasegmental level.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据