CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 796Reading and Literacy DevelopmentDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyLanguage Development and Disorders

Neural deficits in children with dyslexia ameliorated by behavioral remediation: Evidence from functional MRI

Open access
Temple, Elise, Deutsch, Gayle K., Poldrack, Russell A., Miller, Steven L., Tallal, Paula, Merzenich, Michael M., Gabrieli, John D. E.·2003·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.0030098100PMC PMC151431
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Developmental dyslexia, characterized by unexplained difficulty in reading, is associated with behavioral deficits in phonological processing. Functional neuroimaging studies have shown a deficit in the neural mechanisms underlying phonological processing in children and adults with dyslexia. The present study examined whether behavioral remediation ameliorates these dysfunctional neural mechanisms in children with dyslexia. Functional MRI was performed on 20 children with dyslexia (8–12 years old) during phonological processing before and after a remediation program focused on auditory processing and oral language training. Behaviorally, training improved oral language and reading performance. Physiologically, children with dyslexia showed increased activity in multiple brain areas. Increases occurred in left temporo-parietal cortex and left inferior frontal gyrus, bringing brain activation in these regions closer to that seen in normal-reading children. Increased activity was observed also in right-hemisphere frontal and temporal regions and in the anterior cingulate gyrus. Children with dyslexia showed a correlation between the magnitude of increased activation in left temporo-parietal cortex and improvement in oral language ability. These results suggest that a partial remediation of language-processing deficits, resulting in improved reading, ameliorates disrupted function in brain regions associated with phonological processing and produces additional compensatory activation in other brain regions.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In 20 children with dyslexia, an 8-week auditory/oral-language remediation program improved reading and language scores and increased fMRI activation during phonological processing in left temporo-parietal and left inferior frontal regions, with additional right-hemisphere and cingulate changes. Increased left temporo-parietal activation correlated with oral-language improvement, suggesting partial normalization plus compensatory plasticity.

Key findings

  • After remediation, children with dyslexia improved on reading and language measures: WJ-RMT Word Identification 78.2 to 86.0 (P = 0.0005), Word Attack 85.5 to 93.7 (P = 0.0001), Passage Comprehension 83.3 to 88.9 (P = 0.005), CELF-3 Receptive Language 92.5 to 101.3 (P = 0.001), Expressive Language 95.0 to 102.2 (P = 0.006), and CTOPP Rapid Naming 79.1 to 86.5 (P = 0.006).
  • fMRI showed increased activity after remediation in left temporo-parietal cortex and left inferior frontal gyrus, regions involved in phonological processing; the left inferior frontal increase overlapped with activity seen in normal-reading children, while the left temporo-parietal increase was near but not overlapping the normal-reading focus.
  • Increased activity also appeared in right inferior/middle/superior frontal gyri, right middle temporal gyrus, bilateral cingulate gyrus, left hippocampal gyrus, and other regions not normally active during the task.
  • Increase in left temporo-parietal activation correlated with improvement in oral language (CELF-3 total: r = 0.41, P = 0.03) and with Phonic Word training performance (r = 0.58, P = 0.012), but not with reading improvement; right inferior frontal increase correlated with Blending Words improvement (r = 0.43, P = 0.04).

Methods

  • Twenty children with dyslexia (8–12 years old) and 12 normal-reading children completed fMRI and behavioral testing before and after an ≈8-week interval. Children with dyslexia underwent Fast ForWord Language training for 100 min/day, 5 days/week, averaging 27.9 training days; controls received no remediation.
  • fMRI used a block design with Rhyme Letters (phonological), Match Letters (nonphonological letter), and Match Lines (baseline) tasks; analyses used SPM 99, random-effects paired t tests, and a mask excluding regions that changed in controls (P < 0.01, 20-voxel threshold).
  • Behavioral measures included Woodcock–Johnson Reading Mastery Test-Revised Word Identification, Word Attack, and Passage Comprehension; CELF-3 Receptive and Expressive Language; and CTOPP Rapid Naming and Blending Words.

Limitations

  • Stated: the study lacked an untreated dyslexic control group and an alternative/placebo remediation comparison, so it cannot determine which changes are general to remediation versus specific to Fast ForWord Language.
  • Stated: the remediation program has multiple components, so it is unclear which components drive which brain changes; the study examined only immediate effects, not enduring effects.
  • Evident from the text: sample sizes were modest (20 dyslexic, 12 control), improvement varied across individuals (e.g., one child had <0 and eight had <5 points improvement on Basic Reading; five had close to or <0 and five had close to 5 points improvement on Total Language), and no reliable predictors of improvement were identified.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0030098100

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 40 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data
    § Results

    The left temporo-parietal cortex and inferior frontal gyrus regions that showed increased activity after remediation in children with dyslexia also showed activity in normal-reading children performing the task.

    “both regions that showed activity in the normal-reading children performing this task.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    The improvements on the three reading tests raised the dyslexic group's scores into the normal range (>85).

    “The improvements on these three tests raised the dyslexic group's scores into the normal range (>85).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    Neither the dyslexic nor control groups showed a significant change in performance on the letter rhyme task performed during fMRI.

    “Neither the dyslexic nor control groups showed a change in performance on the letter rhyme task performed during fMRI (percent accuracy: dyslexics: pretraining = 71.2, posttraining = 76.0, P > 0.1; controls: pretraining = 83.1, posttraining = 84.1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Abstract

    After remediation, increased activity was observed in the anterior cingulate gyrus in children with dyslexia.

    “Increased activity was observed also in right-hemisphere frontal and temporal regions and in the anterior cingulate gyrus.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    After remediation, increases were also seen in brain areas that were not active in normal-reading children performing the task, including right inferior, middle and superior frontal gyri, and middle temporal gyrus.

    “Increases were also seen in brain areas that were not active in the normal-reading children performing this task, including right inferior, middle and superior frontal gyri, and middle temporal gyrus.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • May combine two claims. 14
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 11

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data
    § Abstract

    Children with dyslexia showed increased activity in multiple brain areas after remediation.

    “Physiologically, children with dyslexia showed increased activity in multiple brain areas.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    For reading (composite Basic Reading Score), one child had <0 and eight children had <5 points improvement.

    “For reading (as measured by a composite Basic Reading Score), one child had <0 and eight children had <5 points improvement.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    For language ability (composite Total Language score), five children had close to or <0 and five children had close to 5 points improvement.

    “For language ability (as measured by a composite Total Language score), five children had close to or <0 and five children had close to 5 points improvement.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Discussion

    Right parieto-occipital sulcus, left lingual gyrus, precuneus, and bilateral thalamus showed significant changes after remediation.

    “Right parieto-occipital sulcus, left lingual gyrus, precuneus, and bilateral thalamus also showed significant changes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Developmental dyslexia is characterized by difficulties in language processing.

    “An emerging consensus is that developmental dyslexia is characterized by difficulties in language processing.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [2] Snow C E, Burns M S, Griffin P. Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press; 1998. [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Methods

    Motion was minimal, and there were no significant differences in motion between dyslexic and control groups or between first and second scans.

    “Motion was minimal, and there were no significant differences between dyslexic (0.4 mm) and control groups (0.3 mm) or between first (0.4 mm) and second (0.3 mm) scans.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Previous research on recovery of function after brain injury has shown that, in the face of left hemisphere damage, the right hemisphere can increase its activity in a compensatory manner.

    “Previous research on recovery of function after brain injury has shown that, in the face of left hemisphere damage, the right hemisphere can increase its activity in a compensatory manner (16–18).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [16] Vikingstad E M, Cao Y, Thomas A J, Johnson A F, Malik G M, Welch K M. Neurosurgery. 2000;47:562–570. doi: 10.1097/00006123-200009000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [17] Cao Y, Vikingstad E M, George K P, Johnson A F, Welch K M. Stroke. 1999;30:2331–2340. doi: 10.1161/01.str.30.11.2331. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [18] Thulborn K R, Carpenter P A, Just M A. Stroke. 1999;30:749–754. doi: 10.1161/01.str.30.4.749. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Children with dyslexia had previously shown activation in left frontal cortex during phonological processing, localized more anteriorly and medially than normal-reading children.

    “The children with dyslexia had previously shown activation in left frontal cortex during phonological processing (12), but their activation was localized more anteriorly and medially than normal-reading children.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [12] Temple E, Poldrack R A, Salidis J, Deutsch G K, Tallal P, Merzenich M M, Gabrieli J D. NeuroReport. 2001;12:299–307. doi: 10.1097/00001756-200102120-00024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Methods

    Control children and children with dyslexia were matched for age, gender, handedness, and nonverbal IQ.

    “Control children and children with dyslexia (Table 1) were between 8–12 years of age and matched for age, gender, handedness, and nonverbal IQ (Block Design subtest of Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children-III).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    The hippocampal cortex is involved in memory.

    “In addition, we hypothesized increases in the brain regions involved in attention and memory, the anterior cingulate gyrus (19) and hippocampal cortex (20), respectively.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [20] Brewer J B, Moghekar A. Trends Cogn Sci. 2002;6:217–223. doi: 10.1016/s1364-6613(02)01881-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    The anterior cingulate gyrus is involved in attention.

    “In addition, we hypothesized increases in the brain regions involved in attention and memory, the anterior cingulate gyrus (19) and hippocampal cortex (20), respectively.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [19] Bush G, Luu P, Posner M I. Trends Cogn Sci. 2000;4:215–222. doi: 10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01483-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Methods

    A mask excluded any regions that showed a change in the control group, so all reported changes in the dyslexic group are in regions that showed no change in the control group.

    “A mask was made that excluded any regions that showed a change in the control group (P < 0.01, 20-voxel threshold) and applied to the dyslexics' paired t test. All reported changes in the dyslexic group, therefore, are in regions that showed no change in the control group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Discussion

    The neural effects of remediation occurred both in brain areas normally involved in phonological processing (but dysfunctional in dyslexia) and in other regions not normally activated during phonological processing.

    “The neural effects of remediation occurred both in brain areas that are normally involved in phonological processing (but dysfunctional in dyslexia) and other regions that are not normally activated during phonological processing.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The test-retest, practice, and developmental effects controlled by the normal-reading control group are not different in children with dyslexia.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Left hippocampal gyrus is associated with memory and the ability to form associations.

    “Changes also were seen in left hippocampal gyrus, a region associated with memory and the ability to form associations (20), skills that are also emphasized in the program.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [20] Brewer J B, Moghekar A. Trends Cogn Sci. 2002;6:217–223. doi: 10.1016/s1364-6613(02)01881-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Discussion

    It is not clear from this study alone which specific components of the remediation program may be driving which specific changes in brain activity.

    “It is not clear from this study alone which specific components of the remediation program may be driving which specific changes in brain activity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Improvements in oral language ability and phonological processing have been associated with improvements in reading ability and are thought to subserve learning to read.

    “Improvements in oral language ability and phonological processing have been associated with improvements in reading ability and are thought to subserve learning to read (2–4).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [2] Snow C E, Burns M S, Griffin P. Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press; 1998. [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [3] Wagner R K, Torgenson J K. Psychol Bull. 1987;101:192–212. [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [4] Wagner R K, Torgesen J K, Rashotte C A, Hecht S A, Barker T A, Burgess S R, Donahue J, Garon T. Develop Psychol. 1997;33:468–479. doi: 10.1037//0012-1649.33.3.468. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    The increase in left temporo-parietal activity reflects a partial but not complete amelioration of the disrupted temporo-parietal response.

    “This increase in left temporo-parietal activity, seemed, therefore, to reflect a partial but not a complete amelioration of the disrupted temporo-parietal response.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The test-retest, practice, and developmental effects controlled by the normal-reading control group are not different in children with dyslexia.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Discussion

    The use of the normal-reading control group rules out brain changes caused by undergoing fMRI scanning twice, practice effects associated with undergoing the tasks a second time, and normal development over an 8-week period.

    “The use of this control group rules out any possible brain changes that may be caused by undergoing fMRI scanning twice, practice effects associated with undergoing the tasks a second time, and normal development that occurs in children over an 8-week period.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Conclusions

    Some of the changes brought the brain function of children with dyslexia closer to that seen in normal-reading children, whereas other changes seemed to be compensatory in nature.

    “Some of the changes brought the brain function of children with dyslexia closer to that seen in normal-reading children, whereas other changes seemed to be compensatory in nature.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The test-retest, practice, and developmental effects controlled by the normal-reading control group are not different in children with dyslexia.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Anterior cingulate gyrus is associated with increased attention and is deficient in attention disorders.

    “Bilateral anterior cingulate gyrus, a region associated with increased attention (19) and deficient in attention disorders (33), showed increased activity after remediation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [19] Bush G, Luu P, Posner M I. Trends Cogn Sci. 2000;4:215–222. doi: 10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01483-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [33] Bush G, Frazier J A, Rauch S L, Seidman L J, Whalen P J, Jenike M A, Rosen B R, Biederman J. Biol Psychiatry. 1999;45:1542–1552. doi: 10.1016/s0006-3223(99)00083-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Left temporo-parietal cortex is involved in phonological processing in children and adults and is disrupted in children and adults with dyslexia during phonological processing.

    “Left temporo-parietal cortex has been shown to be involved in phonological processing in children and adults and to be disrupted in children and adults with dyslexia during phonological processing (5, 12, 28–32).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 7 sources checked
    • cites [5] Temple E. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2002;12:178–183. doi: 10.1016/s0959-4388(02)00303-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [12] Temple E, Poldrack R A, Salidis J, Deutsch G K, Tallal P, Merzenich M M, Gabrieli J D. NeuroReport. 2001;12:299–307. doi: 10.1097/00001756-200102120-00024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [28] Poldrack R A, Wagner A D, Prull M W, Desmond J E, Glover G H, Gabrieli J D. NeuroImage. 1999;10:15–35. doi: 10.1006/nimg.1999.0441. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [29] Demb J B, Poldrack R A, Gabrieli J D E. In: Converging Methods for Understanding Reading and Dyslexia. Klein R M, McMullen P A, editors. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1999. pp. 245–304. [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [30] Fiez J A, Petersen S E. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1998;95:914–921. doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.3.914. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [31] Pugh K R, Shaywitz B A, Shaywitz S E, Constable R T, Skudlarski P, Fulbright R K, Bronen R A, Shankweiler D P, Katz L, Fletcher J M, Gore J C. Brain. 1996;119:1221–1238. doi: 10.1093/brain/119.4.1221. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [32] Cabeza R, Nyberg L. J Cogn Neurosci. 2000;12:1–47. doi: 10.1162/08989290051137585. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Left inferior frontal gyrus is involved in phonological processing in children and adults.

    “The left inferior frontal gyrus has been shown to be involved in phonological processing in children and adults (28, 31, 32).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [28] Poldrack R A, Wagner A D, Prull M W, Desmond J E, Glover G H, Gabrieli J D. NeuroImage. 1999;10:15–35. doi: 10.1006/nimg.1999.0441. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [31] Pugh K R, Shaywitz B A, Shaywitz S E, Constable R T, Skudlarski P, Fulbright R K, Bronen R A, Shankweiler D P, Katz L, Fletcher J M, Gore J C. Brain. 1996;119:1221–1238. doi: 10.1093/brain/119.4.1221. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [32] Cabeza R, Nyberg L. J Cogn Neurosci. 2000;12:1–47. doi: 10.1162/08989290051137585. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given
    § Discussion

    The Fast ForWord Language program does not provide training in reading per se but provides training in oral language skills.

    “This program does not provide training in reading per se, but does provide training in oral language skills.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
23 of 23

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The extent to which the disrupted neural response in dyslexia can be changed through remediation was not known.

    “What has not been known is the extent to which this disruption in neural response observed in dyslexia can be changed through remediation.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The test-retest, practice, and developmental effects controlled by the normal-reading control group are not different in children with dyslexia.

    “This group would more closely match the dyslexic experimental group and would ensure that any test-retest, practice, or developmental effects that were controlled for here with normal-reading children are not different in children with dyslexia.”
2 of 2

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Training effects in reading-impaired children have recently been linked to changes in fMRI activation, including posterior occipitotemporal regions in the vicinity of the VWFA, as children attempt to link letters to sounds.

    “Furthermore, training effects in reading-impaired children have recently been linked to changes in fMRI activation, including posterior occipitotemporal regions in the vicinity of the VWFA [38], as children attempt to link letters to sounds.”

    From The visual word form area: expertise for reading in the fusiform gyrus (2003) · cites this paper as [38]

  • Few long-term studies have followed brain changes that support reading growth in typical children.

    “For these reasons and others, long-term longitudinal studies of brain changes underlying reading development in the normal population are still quite rare, and the longitudinal perspective is used mostly for testing intervention effects (Brem et al., 2010; Shaywitz et al., 2004; Temple et al., 2003).”

    From The Development of Cortical Sensitivity to Visual Word Forms (2011) · cites this paper as Temple et al., 2003

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Temporo-parietal ROI does not include the reported activation peak

    Major

    The ROI has a 10-mm radius and is centered at Y = 16, whereas the reported peak of the postremediation left angular-gyrus increase is at Y = −80. The peak is 96 mm away along that axis alone, despite the ROI being described as encompassing the region showing that increase.

  • Control-group age dispersion exceeds the possible age range

    Minor

    Table 1 reports 10.7 (9.5) for control-group age, although all children are stated to be 8-12 years old. If the parenthetical value is the dispersion used for the other Table 1 characteristics, a standard deviation of 9.5 years is impossible within that range.

  • Left-handed percentages do not fit the reported group sizes

    Minor

    Seventeen percent of 20 children is 3.4 children, and 20% of 12 children is 2.4 children. Neither reported percentage is attainable by rounding a whole-person count to the nearest percent for its stated group size.

  • Reported trial schedule exceeds the scan length

    Minor

    With three conditions, six blocks per condition, and five 3.2-second trials per block, trials alone require 288 seconds (4.8 minutes). That exceeds the stated 4.5-minute scan before any block instructions are included.

4 of 4

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. N Kraus, T McGee, T Carrell, A Sharma, T Nicol Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol Suppl 44, 211–217 (1995).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Temple, E., Deutsch, G. K., Poldrack, R. A., Miller, S. L., Tallal, P., Merzenich, M. M., & Gabrieli, J. D. E.
Affiliations
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2003-02-25
Volume
100
Issue
5
Pages
2860-2865
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.0030098100
PMC
PMC151431
OpenAlex
W2160244607
Semantic Scholar
b90420ed58e8def1963f652dff2f6d7119c8424b
Cited by
796
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 51 · 2013: 55 · 2012: 47
FWCI
92.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
developmental dyslexia, phonological processing, reading acquisition, children, temporoparietal cortex, inferior frontal gyrus, anterior cingulate cortex, compensatory brain activation, neuroplasticity
MeSH terms
Brain, Brain Diseases, Child, Dyslexia, Female, Humans, Language Disorders, Language Therapy, Learning Disabilities, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Nervous System, Phonetics, Reading, Speech Perception, Time Factors, Verbal Behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-08.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-08.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review