The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Disabled readers suffer from visual and auditory impairments but not from a specific magnocellular deficit
Abstract
The magnocellular theory is a prominent, albeit controversial view asserting that many reading disabled (RD) individuals suffer from a specific impairment within the visual magnocellular pathway. In order to assess the validity of this theory we tested its two basic predictions. The first is that a subpopulation of RD subjects will show impaired performance across a broad range of psychophysical tasks relying on magnocellular functions. The second is that this subpopulation will not be consistently impaired across tasks that do not rely on magnocellular functions. We defined a behavioural criterion for magnocellular function, which incorporates performance in flicker detection, detection of drifting gratings (at low spatial frequencies), speed discrimination and detection of coherent dot motion. We found that some RD subjects (six out of 30) had impaired magnocellular function. Nevertheless, these RD subjects were also consistently impaired on a broad range of other perceptual tasks. The performance of the other subgroup of RD subjects on magnocellular tasks did not differ from that of controls. However, they did show impaired performance in both visual and auditory non-magnocellular tasks requiring fine frequency discriminations. The stimuli used in these tasks were neither modulated in time nor briefly presented. We conclude that some RD subjects have generally impaired perceptual skills. Many RD subjects have more specific perceptual deficits; however, the "magnocellular" level of description did not capture the nature of the perceptual difficulties in any of the RD individuals assessed by us.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Newsome, W., & Pare, E. (1988) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.08-06-02201.1988 · Cited by 1,615
Dyslexia: Cultural Diversity and Biological Unity
Paulesu, E., Démonet, J.-F., Fazio, F., McCrory, E., Chanoine, V., Brunswick, N., Cappa, S. F., Cossu, G., Habib, M., Frith, C. D., et al. (2001) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1057179 · Cited by 1,173
Impaired processing of rapid stimulus sequences in dyslexia
Hari, R., & Renvall, H. (2001) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01801-5 · Cited by 527 · cited 1×
“Vidyasagar (2001) and Hari and Renvall (2001) suggested that dyslexics suffer from an attentional de®cit speci®c to a parietal-lobe dysfunction.”
Cited by
Theories of developmental dyslexia: insights from a multiple case study of dyslexic adults
Ramus, F. (2003) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awg076 · Cited by 1,504
Developmental dyslexia: specific phonological deficit or general sensorimotor dysfunction?
Ramus, F. (2003) · Current Opinion in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/s0959-4388(03)00035-7 · Cited by 812
Sensory theories of developmental dyslexia: three challenges for research
Goswami, U. (2015) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3836 · Cited by 428
Denhart, H. (2008) · Journal of Learning Disabilities · doi:10.1177/0022219408321151 · Cited by 356
Hämäläinen, J. A., Salminen, H. K., & Leppänen, P. H. T. (2013) · Journal of Learning Disabilities · doi:10.1177/0022219411436213 · Cited by 293
Metadata
- Authors
- Amitay, S.
- Venue
- Brain
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2002-10-01
- Volume
- 125
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 2272-2285
- ISSN
- 0006-8950 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2156
- OpenAlex
- W2156891796
- Cited by
- 224
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 25.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Disabled readers suffer from visual and auditory impairments but not from a specific magnocellular deficit. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/brain/awf231
- The paper
- Amitay, S. (2002). Disabled readers suffer from visual and auditory impairments but not from a specific magnocellular deficit. Brain. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awf231
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.