Laboratoire de sciences cognitives et psycholinguistique (CNRS, ENS, EHESS, PSL Research University), Ecole Normale Supérieure, 29 rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris, France.
Brain and Learning Lab, Campus Biotech, University of Geneva, 9 Chemin des Mines, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland.
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2018 Jan;84:434-452. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.08.001. Epub 2017 Aug 7.
Investigations into the neuroanatomical bases of developmental dyslexia have now spanned more than 40 years, starting with the post-mortem examination of a few individual brains in the 60s and 70s, and exploding in the 90s with the widespread use of MRI. The time is now ripe to reappraise the considerable amount of data gathered with MRI using different types of sequences (T1, diffusion, spectroscopy) and analysed using different methods (manual, voxel-based or surface-based morphometry, fractional anisotropy and tractography, multivariate analyses…). While selective reviews of mostly small-scale studies seem to provide a coherent view of the brain disruptions that are typical of dyslexia, involving left perisylvian and occipito-temporal regions, we argue that this view may be deceptive and that meta-analyses and large-scale studies rather highlight many inconsistencies and limitations. We discuss problems inherent to small sample size as well as methodological difficulties that still undermine the discovery of reliable neuroanatomical bases of dyslexia, and we outline some recommendations to further improve this research area.
对发展性阅读障碍的神经解剖学基础的研究已经持续了 40 多年，始于 60 年代和 70 年代对少数个体大脑的尸检，90 年代随着 MRI 的广泛应用而爆发。现在是时候重新评估使用不同类型的序列（T1、扩散、光谱）进行 MRI 收集的大量数据，并使用不同的方法（手动、体素或基于表面的形态测量学、各向异性分数和轨迹、多变量分析……）进行分析。虽然对大多数小规模研究的选择性综述似乎提供了对阅读障碍典型的大脑紊乱的连贯看法，涉及左侧周围脑区和枕颞区，但我们认为这种观点可能具有欺骗性，荟萃分析和大规模研究反而突出了许多不一致和局限性。我们讨论了小样本量固有的问题以及仍然破坏阅读障碍可靠神经解剖学基础发现的方法学困难，并概述了一些建议，以进一步改进该研究领域。
