Wehner Daniel T, Ahlfors Seppo P, Mody Maria
MGH/MIT/HMS Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, MA, United States.
Neuropsychologia. 2007 Nov 5;45(14):3251-62. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.06.018. Epub 2007 Jul 1.
Poor readers perform worse than their normal reading peers on a variety of speech perception tasks, which may be linked to their phonological processing abilities. The purpose of the study was to compare the brain activation patterns of normal and impaired readers on speech perception to better understand the phonological basis in reading disability. Whole-head magnetoencephalography (MEG) was recorded as good and poor readers, 7-13 years of age, performed an auditory word discrimination task. We used an auditory oddball paradigm in which the 'deviant' stimuli (/bat/, /kat/, /rat/) differed in the degree of phonological contrast (one versus three features) from a repeated standard word (/pat/). Both good and poor readers responded more slowly to deviants that were phonologically similar compared to deviants that were phonologically dissimilar to the standard word. Source analysis of the MEG data using minimum norm estimation (MNE) showed that compared to good readers, poor readers had reduced left-hemisphere activation to the most demanding phonological condition reflecting their difficulties with phonological processing. Furthermore, unlike good readers, poor readers did not show differences in activation as a function of the degree of phonological contrast. These results are consistent with a phonological account of reading disability.
阅读能力差的人在各种言语感知任务中的表现比阅读能力正常的同龄人更差,这可能与他们的语音处理能力有关。本研究的目的是比较阅读能力正常者和阅读障碍者在言语感知时的大脑激活模式,以更好地理解阅读障碍的语音基础。对7至13岁的阅读能力良好和较差的读者进行听觉单词辨别任务时,记录了全脑磁脑图(MEG)。我们使用了一种听觉oddball范式,其中“偏差”刺激(/bat/、/kat/、/rat/)与重复的标准单词(/pat/)在语音对比程度(一个特征与三个特征)上有所不同。与语音上与标准单词不同的偏差刺激相比,阅读能力良好和较差的读者对语音上相似的偏差刺激的反应都更慢。使用最小范数估计(MNE)对MEG数据进行源分析表明,与阅读能力良好的读者相比,阅读能力较差的读者在最具挑战性的语音条件下左半球激活减少,这反映了他们在语音处理方面的困难。此外,与阅读能力良好的读者不同,阅读能力较差的读者没有表现出激活随语音对比程度的差异。这些结果与阅读障碍的语音理论一致。