3.8 Article

Developmental dyslexia: ERP correlates of anomalous phonological processing during spoken word recognition

期刊

COGNITIVE BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 21, 期 3, 页码 360-376

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.06.010

关键词

developmental dyslexia; auditory event-related potentials (ERPs); phonological priming; spoken word recognition; phonological deficit theory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ample evidence suggests that developmental dyslexia results from a phonological deficit that may not be reducible to a low-level auditory deficit. Yet, on-line phonological processing (in)capacities in dyslexics remain virtually unexplored, as studies have typically focused on either meta-phonological awareness tasks or, at the other extreme, basic perceptual tasks. The present study investigates event-related potential (ERP) correlates of implicit phonological processing during the recognition of spoken words in dyslexic and normally reading children (7-10 years). We examined general ERP morphology and alliteration priming effects on ERP measures in an auditory lexical decision task. Primes were words (Experiment 1) and non-words (Experiment 2). Alliteration priming effects suggested a distinct pattern of normal versus anomalous aspects of spoken word processing in dyslexic children. Whereas dyslexics showed deviant priming effects in earlier time windows encompassing the N1 and N2, later N400 priming effects were comparable to those of normal readers. The same pattern of results was also present in group comparisons of general ERP morphology. These findings suggest that dyslexics have selective processing anomalies at an earlier phonetic/phonological level, while processing at a later phonological/lexical level proceeds normally. In particular, our results indicate an anomalous contribution of phonological (word onset) information to the processing of spoken words, which may be related to time-course aspects of phonetic/phonological processing. (C) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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