Temple C M
Adv Neurol. 1984;42:223-32.
Although Hinshelwood (10-15), at the turn of the century, was interested in both analysis of individual cases and comparisons between acquired and developmental dyslexia, the most widespread approach to the developmental dyslexias has been the investigation of large groups of dyslexics in comparison to normal readers on a variety of tests. These studies ignore the heterogeneity of the disorder. In contrast, progress has been made in the investigation of acquired disorders of reading by conducting individual psycholinguistic analyses of reading difficulties and utilizing input from cognitive psychology to construct explanatory models and theories. Two of the disorders described and elucidated by this approach are acquired surface dyslexia, in which there is an impairment in whole word recognition and overreliance on sounding out words to obtain their pronunciation and meaning, and acquired phonological dyslexia, in which whole word recognition is good but sounding out of words and nonwords is poor. This approach has recently been used with cases of developmental dyslexia. This chapter compares and contrasts the pattern of performance of different dyslexic children when investigated in this way. Two of the children described are developmental phonological dyslexics; one is a developmental surface dyslexic. The developmental phonological dyslexics are poorer at reading words than non-words; the developmental surface dyslexic performs equally well on both. The developmental surface dyslexic is significantly influenced by spelling-to-sound regularity; the developmental phonological dyslexics are unaffected by this linguistic dimension. The developmental surface dyslexic makes more neologistic responses than the developmental phonological dyslexics, and also makes more valid errors. The developmental phonological dyslexics make derivational, pseudoderivational, and visuosemantic errors. Both groups make visual errors. The developmental phonological dyslexics are significantly impaired when stimuli are presented in a way that prohibits global analysis; the developmental surface dyslexic is unaffected by this manipulation. The developmental surface dyslexic makes homophone confusions, but these are not made by the developmental phonological dyslexics. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
尽管在世纪之交，欣谢尔伍德（10 - 15）对个体病例分析以及获得性阅读障碍与发育性阅读障碍的比较都很感兴趣，但研究发育性阅读障碍最普遍的方法是在各种测试中，将大量阅读障碍者与正常阅读者进行比较。这些研究忽略了该障碍的异质性。相比之下，通过对阅读困难进行个体心理语言学分析，并利用认知心理学的知识构建解释模型和理论，在获得性阅读障碍的研究方面取得了进展。通过这种方法描述和阐明的两种障碍是获得性表层阅读障碍，即全词识别受损，过度依赖拼读单词来获取其发音和意义；以及获得性语音阅读障碍，即全词识别良好，但拼读单词和非单词的能力较差。这种方法最近已用于发育性阅读障碍的病例研究。本章比较并对比了以这种方式进行研究时不同阅读障碍儿童的表现模式。所描述的两名儿童是发育性语音阅读障碍者；一名是发育性表层阅读障碍者。发育性语音阅读障碍者在阅读单词方面比阅读非单词更差；发育性表层阅读障碍者在两者上表现相当。发育性表层阅读障碍者受拼写 - 发音规则性的影响显著；发育性语音阅读障碍者不受这一语言维度的影响。发育性表层阅读障碍者比发育性语音阅读障碍者做出更多的新造词反应，也犯更多有效的错误。发育性语音阅读障碍者犯派生、假派生和视觉语义错误。两组都会犯视觉错误。当以禁止整体分析的方式呈现刺激时，发育性语音阅读障碍者会受到显著损害；发育性表层阅读障碍者不受此操作影响。发育性表层阅读障碍者会出现同音异形词混淆，但发育性语音阅读障碍者不会。（摘要截选至400字）
