Lyytinen H, Ahonen T, Eklund K, Guttorm T K, Laakso M L, Leinonen S, Leppänen P H, Lyytinen P, Poikkeus A M, Puolakanaho A, Richardson U, Viholainen H
Department of Psychology, University of Jyväskylä, Niilo Mäki Institute, Finland.
Dev Neuropsychol. 2001;20(2):535-54. doi: 10.1207/S15326942DN2002_5.
Comparisons of the developmental pathways of the first 5 years of life for children with (N = 107) and without (N = 93) familial risk for dyslexia observed in the Jyväskylä Longitudinal study of Dyslexia are reviewed. The earliest differences between groups were found at the ages of a few days and at 6 months in brain event-related potential responses to speech sounds and in head-turn responses (at 6 months), conditioned to reflect categorical perception of speech stimuli. The development of vocalization and motor behavior, based on parental report of the time of reaching significant milestones, or the growth of vocabulary (using the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories) failed to reveal differences before age 2. Similarly, no group differences were found in cognitive and language development assessed by the Bayley Scales of Infant Development and the Reynell Developmental Language Scales before age 2.5. The earliest language measure that showed lower scores among the at-risk group was maximum sentence length at age 2. Early gross motor development had higher correlation to later language skills among the at-risk group rather than the control children. The most consistent predictor of differential development between groups was the onset of talking. Children who were identified as late talkers at age 2 were still delayed at the age 3.5 in most features of language-related skills-but only if they belonged to the group at familial risk for dyslexia. Several phonological and naming measures known to correlate with reading from preschool age differentiated the groups consistently from age 3.5. Our findings imply that a marked proportion of children at familial risk for dyslexia follow atypical neurodevelopmental paths. The signs listed previously comprise a pool of candidates for early predictors and precursors of dyslexia, which await validation.
对在于韦斯屈莱诵读困难纵向研究中观察到的有(N = 107)和没有(N = 93)诵读困难家族风险的儿童生命最初5年的发育途径进行了比较。在对语音的脑事件相关电位反应以及转头反应(6个月时)方面,最早在几天大以及6个月大时发现了两组之间的差异,这些反应是为了反映对语音刺激的范畴知觉而进行条件设定的。基于父母对达到重要里程碑时间的报告,发声和运动行为的发展,或者词汇量的增长(使用麦克阿瑟沟通发展量表)在2岁之前未能揭示出差异。同样,在2.5岁之前,通过贝利婴儿发展量表和雷内尔发展语言量表评估的认知和语言发展方面也未发现组间差异。在风险组中得分较低的最早语言指标是2岁时的最大句子长度。在风险组而非对照组儿童中,早期的粗大运动发展与后期的语言技能有更高的相关性。两组之间发育差异最一致的预测指标是开始说话的时间。在2岁时被确定为说话晚的儿童在3.5岁时,在大多数语言相关技能特征方面仍然滞后——但前提是他们属于有诵读困难家族风险的组。从学龄前就已知与阅读相关的一些语音和命名测量指标从3.5岁起就持续区分了两组。我们的研究结果表明,有诵读困难家族风险的儿童中有很大一部分遵循非典型的神经发育路径。前面列出的这些迹象构成了诵读困难早期预测指标和先兆的候选池,有待验证。