Bosch-Bayard Jorge, Peluso Valeria, Galan Lidice, Valdes Sosa Pedro, Chiarenza Giuseppe A
Institute of Neurobiology, UNAM, Mexico City 76230, Mexico.
Centro Internazionale dei disturbi di apprendimento, attenzione e iperattività, (CIDAAI) Milano 20125, Italy.
Brain Sci. 2018 Sep 10;8(9):172. doi: 10.3390/brainsci8090172.
Reading is essentially a two-channel function, requiring the integration of intact visual and auditory processes both peripheral and central. It is essential for normal reading that these component processes go forward automatically. Based on this model, Boder described three main subtypes of dyslexia: dysphonetic dyslexia (DD), dyseidetic, mixed and besides a fourth group defined non-specific reading delay (NSRD). The subtypes are identified by an algorithm that considers the reading quotient and the % of errors in the spelling test. Chiarenza and Bindelli have developed the Direct Test of Reading and Spelling (DTRS), a computerized, modified and validated version to the Italian language of the Boder test. The sample consisted of 169 subjects with DD and 36 children with NSRD. The diagnosis of dyslexia was made according to the DSM-V criteria. The DTRS was used to identify the dyslexia subtypes and the NSRD group. 2⁻5 min of artefact-free EEG (electroencephalogram), recorded at rest with eyes closed, according to 10⁻20 system were analyzed. Stability based Biomarkers identification methodology was applied to the DTRS and the quantitative EEG (QEEG). The reading quotients and the errors of the reading and spelling test were significantly different in the two groups. The DD group had significantly higher activity in delta and theta bands compared to NSRD group in the frontal, central and parietal areas bilaterally. The classification equation for the QEEG, both at the scalp and the sources levels, obtained an area under the robust Receiver Operating Curve (ROC) of 0.73. However, we obtained a discrimination equation for the DTRS items which did not participate in the Boder classification algorithm, with a specificity and sensitivity of 0.94 to discriminate DD from NSRD. These results demonstrate for the first time the existence of different neuropsychological and neurophysiological patterns between children with DD and children with NSRD. They may also provide clinicians and therapists warning signals deriving from the anamnesis and the results of the DTRS that should lead to an earlier diagnosis of reading delay, which is usually very late diagnosed and therefore, untreated until the secondary school level.
阅读本质上是一种双通道功能,需要整合完整的外周和中枢视觉与听觉过程。这些组成过程自动推进对于正常阅读至关重要。基于此模型,博德描述了诵读困难的三种主要亚型:语音性诵读困难(DD)、表象性诵读困难、混合型,此外还有第四组定义为非特异性阅读延迟(NSRD)。这些亚型通过一种考虑阅读商数和拼写测试错误百分比的算法来识别。基亚伦扎和宾代利开发了阅读与拼写直接测试(DTRS),这是博德测试的意大利语版本的计算机化、修改和验证版本。样本包括169名患有DD的受试者和36名患有NSRD的儿童。诵读困难的诊断根据《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版标准进行。DTRS用于识别诵读困难亚型和NSRD组。分析了按照10-20系统在闭眼休息时记录的2至5分钟无伪迹脑电图(EEG)。基于稳定性的生物标志物识别方法应用于DTRS和定量脑电图(QEEG)。两组的阅读商数以及阅读和拼写测试的错误存在显著差异。与NSRD组相比,DD组在双侧额叶、中央和顶叶区域的δ波和θ波活动明显更高。头皮和源水平的QEEG分类方程在稳健的受试者工作特征曲线(ROC)下的面积为0.73。然而,我们获得了一个针对未参与博德分类算法的DTRS项目的判别方程,用于区分DD和NSRD的特异性和敏感性为0.94。这些结果首次证明了患有DD的儿童和患有NSRD的儿童之间存在不同的神经心理学和神经生理学模式。它们还可能为临床医生和治疗师提供来自病史和DTRS结果的警示信号,这应能导致对阅读延迟的更早诊断,而阅读延迟通常很晚才被诊断出来,因此直到中学阶段都未得到治疗。