3.8 Review

The development of reading impairment: A cognitive neuroscience model

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/mrdd.10080

关键词

brain; development; dyslexia; extrastriate; functional neuroimaging; fusiform; fMRI; intervention; language; MEG; perisylvian; PET; plasticity; reading

资金

  1. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH &HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [P50HD025802] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NICHD NIH HHS [HD25802-13] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review discusses recent cognitive neuroscience investigations into the biological bases of developmental dyslexia, a common disorder impacting approximately 5 to 17 percent of the population [Rutter, 1978, I. Prevalence and types of dyslexia. In: Benton A, Pearl D (eds.), Dyslexia: An appraisal of current knowledge. New York: Oxford; Stanovich, 1986, Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly 21: 360-407]. Our aim is to summarize central findings from several lines of evidence that converge on pivotal aspects of the brain bases of developmental dyslexia. We highlight ways in which the approaches and methodologies of developmental cognitive neuroscience that are addressed in this special issue-including neuroimaging, human genetics, refinement of cognitive and biological phenotypes, neural plasticity and computational model-can be employed in uncovering the biological bases of this disorder. Taking a developmental perspective on the biological bases of dyslexia, we propose a simple cascading model for the developmental progression of this disorder, in which individual differences in brain areas associated with phonological processing might influence the specialization of visual areas involved in the rapid processing of written words. We also discuss recent efforts to understand the impact of successful reading interventions in terms of changes within cortical circuits associated with reading ability. (C) 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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