3.8 Article

Deficits in the Magnocellular Pathway of People with Reading Difficulties

期刊

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1007/s40474-022-00248-2

关键词

Developmental dyslexia; Magnocellular deficits; Reading difficulties; Magnocellular-dorsal system

资金

  1. Research Centre for SHARP Vision (RCSV) from the Hong Kong Polytechnic University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review summarizes recent publications investigating the causal relationship of magnocellular theory in developmental dyslexia. It found that magnocellular-dorsal deficits are a cause, not a consequence, of reading difficulties. Training magnocellular-dorsal functions can improve reading skills in dyslexic children. This suggests that magnocellular-dorsal functions should be included in tests to identify children at risk of developmental dyslexia, but other factors should also be considered.
Purpose of Review The magnocellular theory is one of the well-accepted neurobiological theories to explain developmental dyslexia. However, criticism remains on whether the weaker magnocellular-dorsal system in dyslexics is a consequence of insufficient practice in reading skills. This mini-review summarizes recent publications investigating the causal relationship of magnocellular theory in developmental dyslexia. Recent Findings Emerging evidence highlights visual magnocellular-dorsal deficits as a cause, not a consequence, of reading difficulties. Recent studies have indicated that cognitive impairment of magnocellular-dorsal functions is a biomarker of developmental dyslexia and does not relate to the reading experience. However, training magnocellular-dorsal functions can also improve the reading skills in dyslexic children. Magnocellular-dorsal functions should be included in the battery of tests to identify children at risk of developmental dyslexia. However, other factors discussed in this review, including the involvement of the parvocellular system and noise cancellation deficit, should also be considered.

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

3.8
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