The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 39 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children.
Open accessAbstract
Learning to associate auditory information of speech sounds with visual information of letters is a first and critical step for becoming a skilled reader in alphabetic languages. Nevertheless, it remains largely unknown which brain areas subserve the learning and automation of such associations. Here, we employ functional magnetic resonance imaging to study letter-speech sound integration in children with and without developmental dyslexia. The results demonstrate that dyslexic children show reduced neural integration of letters and speech sounds in the planum temporale/Heschl sulcus and the superior temporal sulcus. While cortical responses to speech sounds in fluent readers were modulated by letter-speech sound congruency with strong suppression effects for incongruent letters, no such modulation was observed in the dyslexic readers. Whole-brain analyses of unisensory visual and auditory group differences additionally revealed reduced unisensory responses to letters in the fusiform gyrus in dyslexic children, as well as reduced activity for processing speech sounds in the anterior superior temporal gyrus, planum temporale/Heschl sulcus and superior temporal sulcus. Importantly, the neural integration of letters and speech sounds in the planum temporale/Heschl sulcus and the neural response to letters in the fusiform gyrus explained almost 40% of the variance in individual reading performance. These findings indicate that an interrelated network of visual, auditory and heteromodal brain areas contributes to the skilled use of letter-speech sound associations necessary for learning to read. By extending similar findings in adults, the data furthermore argue against the notion that reduced neural integration of letters and speech sounds in dyslexia reflect the consequence of a lifetime of reading struggle. Instead, they support the view that letter-speech sound integration is an emergent property of learning to read that develops inadequately in dyslexic readers, presumably as a result of a deviant interactive specialization of neural systems for processing auditory and visual linguistic inputs.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Dyslexic children showed reduced neural integration of letters and speech sounds in left planum temporale/Heschl sulcus and superior temporal sulcus, alongside weaker unisensory responses to speech sounds and letters. The integration and visual letter responses together explained almost 40% of variance in reading performance, suggesting letter-speech sound integration is an emergent property of learning to read that develops inadequately in dyslexia.
Key findings
- Dyslexic children had reduced congruency effects for letter-speech sound pairs in left planum temporale/Heschl sulcus (117 voxels, t = 16.7, P = 0.00) and bilateral superior temporal sulcus (left: t = 7.73, P = 0.01; right: t = 8.34, P = 0.01); fluent readers showed stronger activation for congruent than incongruent pairs, while dyslexic readers showed no such modulation.
- Unisensory group differences included weaker speech-sound responses in anterior superior temporal gyrus (left t = 2.89, right t = 2.8, P = 0.01) and weaker letter responses in fusiform gyrus bilaterally (left t = 3.83, P = 0.00; right t = 4.51, P = 0.00) in dyslexic children.
- The congruency effect in planum temporale/Heschl sulcus and the visual response in fusiform gyrus explained almost 40% of variance in reading performance (R² = 0.39); PT/HS alone: R = 0.51, R² change = 0.27, F = 12.04, P = 0.002; combined model: R = 0.62, R² change = 0.11, F = 5.73, P = 0.023.
- Attention task performance was comparable: fluent readers mean = 97.91, SEM = 1.55; dyslexic readers mean = 99.08, SEM = 0.55; reaction times 575 ms vs 609 ms, P = 0.10.
Methods
- fMRI study of 18 dyslexic children (mean age 9.39, SD 0.43, one female) and 16 non-impaired readers (mean age 9.43, SD 0.44, four females), all healthy, right-handed, native Dutch speakers, matched for educational level, age, handedness and IQ.
- Block design with four conditions: unisensory letters, unisensory speech sounds, multisensory congruent letter-speech sound pairs, and multisensory incongruent pairs; 128 stimuli per condition; children performed an attention detection task; data acquired on a 3 T Siemens scanner and analyzed in BrainVoyager QX using random-effects GLMs, including a 2 × 2 reading status × multisensory condition interaction.
- Offline standardized battery included reading, phoneme deletion, phonological decoding, and letter-to-sound matching; correlations and stepwise multiple linear regressions related fMRI responses to reading performance.
Limitations
- The paper states that the linear regression results should be treated with caution because of the small sample size of neuroimaging studies, and that the assumption about child-adult differences needs further empirical validation.
- Evident from the text: the design is cross-sectional, so it cannot directly establish causality, although the authors argue the integration deficit is not merely a consequence of a lifetime of reading struggle.
- Evident from the text: brain-behaviour correlations became non-significant when reading group was partialled out, indicating they were driven by group differences in reading ability; the total sample was small (n = 34) and the dyslexic group included only one female.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
43 Own result · 21 Not checked yet · 16 Own interpretation · 7 Own method
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“as well as reduced activity for processing speech sounds in the anterior superior temporal gyrus, planum temporale/Heschl sulcus and superior temporal sulcus.”
- Also stated in: § Unisensory activations · plain
“Dyslexic children showed weaker activity for processing speech sounds in the anterior superior temporal gyrus (Fig. 2A)”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Unisensory activations · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Importantly, the neural integration of letters and speech sounds in the planum temporale/Heschl sulcus and the neural response to letters in the fusiform gyrus explained almost 40% of the variance in individual reading performance.”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whole-brain analyses of unisensory visual and auditory group differences additionally revealed reduced unisensory responses to letters in the fusiform gyrus in dyslexic children”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results demonstrate that dyslexic children show reduced neural integration of letters and speech sounds in the planum temporale/Heschl sulcus and the superior temporal sulcus.”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Abstract
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, non-impaired and dyslexic readers responded equally fast to attention stimuli (fluent: mean = 575 ms, SEM = 16.1;dyslexic: mean = 609 ms, SEM = 14.0;P = 0.10), indicating that attention levels were comparable across reading groups.”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Attention task
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Together, these two neural effects explained almost 40% of the variance in reading performance (R 2 = 0.39).”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Correlations with performance
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while the congruency effect explained an additional 20% of the variance above and beyond the auditory response to speech.”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Correlations with performance
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Auditory effects explained no additional variance that was not already explained by the effect of congruency in planum temporale/Heschl sulcus and superior temporal sulcus”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Correlations with performance
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results revealed a significant interaction in the dorsal part of the left superior temporal gyrus (planum temporale) in close proximity to primary auditory cortex (Heschl sulcus) (Table 2).”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Multisensory activations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In multisensory conditions, we found weaker effects of congruency in the planum temporale/Heschl sulcus and the superior temporal sulcus of dyslexic children”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 19
- Probably not a substantial claim. 15
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While cortical responses to speech sounds in fluent readers were modulated by letter-speech sound congruency with strong suppression effects for incongruent letters, no such modulation was observed in the dyslexic readers.”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Abstract
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Specifically, dyslexic readers showed impaired reading (within the lower 10th percentile on a standardized test of word reading) and poor performance on subtests involving phonological awareness and phonological decoding (Table 1).”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Offline behaviour/diagnostic testing
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Figure 4 illustrates that the fMRI congruency response in planum temporale/Heschl sulcus and superior temporal sulcus correlated positively with accuracy on the reading task and negatively with reaction times on letter-speech sound matching (Fig. 4A and B).”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Correlations with performance
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Faster processing is one of the main indices of automation for a cognitive process.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All reported correlations turned out to be non-significant when the factor reading group was controlled using partial correlations, suggesting that the brainbehaviour correlations were driven by group differences in reading ability.”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Correlations with performance
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, the auditory response in the anterior superior temporal gyrus correlated with reading accuracy and the speed of letter-speech sound matching (Fig. 4C) as did the visual response in the fusiform gyrus (Fig. 4D).”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Correlations with performance
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Faster processing is one of the main indices of automation for a cognitive process.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Comparable to planum temporale/ Heschl sulcus, fluent readers activated the superior temporal sulcus more for the presentation of congruent as opposed to incongruent letter-speech sound pairs, while dyslexic readers showed no congruency effect.”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Multisensory activations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Dyslexic children showed weaker activity for processing speech sounds in the anterior superior temporal gyrus (Fig. 2A) and for processing letters in an area around the fusiform gyrus bilaterally (Table 2 and Fig. 2B).”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Unisensory activations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, the visual response in left and right fusiform gyrus correlated with congruency effects in planum temporale/Heschl sulcus (left fusiform gyrus: R = 0.38, P = 0.025; right fusiform gyrus: R = 0.37, P = 0.030), with fluent readers showing stronger responses to letters and a stronger effect of letter-speech sound congruency.”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Correlation between unisensory and multisensory cortical responses
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“More concretely, weaker congruency effects in planum temporale/Heschl sulcus as well as superior temporal sulcus of dyslexic children were associated with lower reading scores, while stronger congruency effects in fluent readers were associated with higher reading scores.”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Multisensory processing of letters and speech sounds
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“neural integration responses in planum temporale/Heschl sulcus and superior temporal sulcus correlated with the speed of performance on letter-speech sound matching, in the absence of accuracy differences for judging the congruency between letters and sounds.”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Multisensory processing of letters and speech sounds
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Thus, the relationship between reading acquisition and awareness for speech sounds is likely to be reciprocal (Perfetti et al., 1987;Wagner and Torgesen, 1987;Torgesen et al., 1994;Ehri, 2005;Ziegler and Goswami, 2005).”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Perfetti et al., 1987
- Not checked yetcites Wagner and Torgesen, 1987
- Not checked yetcites Torgesen et al., 1994 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Criteria for dyslexia were based on a discrepancy score between performance on the reading test and IQ, according to which children with a standard reading score within the lower 10th percentile, but average IQ score were classified as dyslexic (Table 1).”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Methods Participants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Instead, they support the view that letter-speech sound integration is an emergent property of learning to read that develops inadequately in dyslexic readers, presumably as a result of a deviant interactive specialization of neural systems for processing auditory and visual linguistic inputs.”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Although various other factors may play a role as well (Livingstone et al., 1991;Tallal et al., 1993;Stein and Walsh, 1997;Nicolson et al., 2001), impaired phonological awareness constitutes the most common behavioural explanation for reading failure (Ramus, 2003).”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ramus, 2003 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For all independent variables the variance inflation factor was between 1.05 and 2.29 and hence multi co-linearity was considered of no concern for the present model.”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > fMRI data analysis and statistics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The groups were matched for educational level, age, handedness and IQ, (585, Wechsler Intelligence Scale estimated IQ within 1 SD of norm) and were tested on various measures for reading status using a standard test battery (Blomert and Vaessen, 2009).”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Methods Participants
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Blomert and Vaessen, 2009
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Depending on the specificity of the contrast, multisubject statistical maps were corrected for multiple comparisons using the false-discovery rate (Genovese et al., 2002) or cluster-size thresholding (Forman et al., 1995;Goebel et al., 2006).”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > fMRI data analysis and statistics
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Successful acquisition of letter-speech sound associations, in turn, has been theorized to be critical for the development of fluent reading skills by impacting the early phases of literacy acquisition (Bradley and Bryant, 1983;Ehri, 2005).”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bradley and Bryant, 1983
- Not checked yetcites Ehri, 2005
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Moreover, deviant patterns of activation in frontal cortex are reported in some but not all child fMRI studies (Maisog et al., 2008;Gabrieli, 2009).”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Introduction
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“This reduced integration was directly associated with reduced auditory processing of speech sounds, which in turn predicted performance on phonological tasks.”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Blau et al., 2009 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For GLM4 (i.e. the interaction between 'multisensory condition' and 'reading status'), an initial voxel-level threshold was set to P50.01 (t = 5.1) uncorrected resulting in a cluster level of 115 mm 3 (four contiguous voxels) after 1000 iterations and a corresponding corrected false-positive probability of 5% or less.”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > fMRI data analysis and statistics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Specific reading disorder (or developmental dyslexia), which affects $4-10% of the population (Esser et al., 1990;Shaywitz et al., 1990;Blomert, 2005), is characterized by persistent difficulties in reading and/or spelling that are unexpected in relation to age, motivation or other cognitive abilities (Lyon et al., 2003).”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lyon et al., 2003
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For GLM5 (i.e. the direct comparisons between control and dyslexic readers on the auditory or visual condition), an initial voxel-level threshold was set to P50.01 (t = 2.5) uncorrected, resulting in a minimum cluster of 168 mm 3 (five contiguous voxels) at a false-positive probability of 5% or less.”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > fMRI data analysis and statistics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“However, the first critical step in reading development and the focus of most early reading instruction is to learn the correspondences between visual letters and auditory units of speech (speech sounds) (Ehri, 2005).”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ehri, 2005
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Dyslexic subjects were recruited via the Dutch Regional Institute for Dyslexia and diagnosed using an extensive, standardized cognitive-behavioural test procedure.”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Methods Participants
plainn = 18- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This suggests that letter-speech sound integration is an emergent property of learning to read that develops inadequately in dyslexic readers, presumably as a result of a deviant interactive specialization of neural systems for processing auditory and visual linguistic inputs.”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Conclusion
hedgedconditionaln = 34- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These correlations turned out to be non-significant when the factor reading group was partialled out indicating that they indeed reflect an effect of reading ability.”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Multisensory processing of letters and speech sounds
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While these linear regression results should be treated with caution because of the small sample size of neuroimaging studies”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Relation between unisensory and multisensory effects
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“showing that a deficit in letter-speech sound integration is an emergent property of learning to read and not the result of a lifetime of reading difficulties”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Multisensory processing of letters and speech sounds
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Blau et al., 2009 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Faster processing is one of the main indices of automation for a cognitive process.
“Based on the assumption that faster processing is one of the main indices for the automation of a cognitive process (Schneider and Chein, 2003)”
The paper relies on this without support.
The selected age range is the earliest point at which reading disabilities are typically diagnosed.
“Importantly, the selected age range coincides with the earliest time in development at which reading disabilities are typically diagnosed and hence one of the earliest possible time-points to investigate the neurocognitive basis of letterspeech sound integration in dyslexia.”
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?
In the citing paper
“The process of shaping the responses in LOTS is likely to be guided, initially, by phonological and multisensory integration regions in posterior STS and inferior parietal cortex (Blau et al., 2010; Blau, van Atteveldt, Ekkebus, Goebel, & Blomert, 2009).”
From The Development of Cortical Sensitivity to Visual Word Forms (2011) · cites this paper as Blau et al., 2010
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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Conclusion
“aSTG = anterior superior temporal sulcus”
§ Deviant processing of letters and speech sounds as proximate cause of reading failure: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of dyslexic children > Unisensory activations
“Dyslexic children showed weaker activity for processing speech sounds in the anterior superior temporal gyrus”
Citations
Cites
Co-Planar Stereotaxic Atlas of the Human Brain
Talairach, J., & Tournoux, P. (1988) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 11,798
Thresholding of statistical maps in functional neuroimaging using the false discovery rate
Genovese, C. R., Lazar, N. A., & Nichols, T. (2002) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.2001.1037 · Cited by 4,923
The Alzheimer’s disease neuroimaging initiative (ADNI): MRI methods
Jack, C. R., Bernstein, M. A., Fox, N. C., Thompson, P., Alexander, G., Harvey, D., Borowski, B., Britson, P. J., L. Whitwell, J., Ward, C., et al. (2008) · Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · doi:10.1002/jmri.21049 · Cited by 4,347
The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills
Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (1987) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.192 · Cited by 3,303 · cited 1×
“Thus, the relationship between reading acquisition and awareness for speech sounds is likely to be reciprocal (Perfetti et al., 1987; Wagner and Torgesen, 1987; Torgesen et al., 1994; Ehri, 2005; Ziegler and Goswami, 2005).”
BackgroundForman, S. D., Cohen, J. D., Fitzgerald, M., Eddy, W. F., Mintun, M. A., & Noll, D. C. (1995) · Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · doi:10.1002/mrm.1910330508 · Cited by 3,202
Categorizing sounds and learning to read—a causal connection
Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. (1983) · Nature · doi:10.1038/301419a0 · Cited by 3,093
Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.3 · Cited by 2,871
Specific reading disability (dyslexia): what have we learned in the past four decades?
Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M. (2004) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1046/j.0021-9630.2003.00305.x · Cited by 2,555
Phonological recoding and self-teaching: sine qua non of reading acquisition
Share, D. L. (1995) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)00645-2 · Cited by 2,352
Introduction to the Practice of Statistics
(2004) · Technometrics · doi:10.1198/tech.2004.s753 · Cited by 2,275
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- 2004, 44, 411
- 1987, MERILLPALMER QUART, 33, 283
- 2000, 28, 617
- 1995, 55, 151
- 1990, RESULTS OF THE CONNECTICUT LONGITUDINAL STUDY JAMA, 264, 998
- 2004, 43, 271
Cited by
Sorted by citations
How Learning to Read Changes the Cortical Networks for Vision and Language
Dehaene, S., Pegado, F., Braga, L. W., Ventura, P., Filho, G. N., Jobert, A., Dehaene‐Lambertz, G., Kolinsky, R., Morais, J., & Cohen, L. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1194140 · Cited by 1,378
The Interactive Account of ventral occipitotemporal contributions to reading
Price, C. J., & Devlin, J. T. (2011) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2011.04.001 · Cited by 712
Peterson, R. L., & Pennington, B. F. (2015) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032814-112842 · Cited by 748
A Causal Link between Visual Spatial Attention and Reading Acquisition
Franceschini, S., Gori, S., Ruffino, M., Pedrolli, K., & Facoetti, A. (2012) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2012.03.013 · Cited by 528
“Attentional orienting guides cross-modal integration that allows the selective learning of relevant letter-to-speech sound correspondence while suppressing the irrelevant ones [6–8, 42].”
InfluentialMeta-analyzing brain dysfunctions in dyslexic children and adults
Richlan, F., Kronbichler, M., & Wimmer, H. (2011) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.02.040 · Cited by 466
“In addition to the 17 studies included in our previous meta-analysis, we identified 4 recent studies with children (Blau et al., 2010; Meyler et al., 2008; Schulz et al., 2009; van der Mark et al., 2009) and 2 with adults (Blau et al., 2009; Richlan et al., 2010).”
Influential
Metadata
- Authors
- Blau, V., Reithler, J., van Atteveldt, N., Seitz, J., Gerretsen, P., Goebel, R., & Blomert, L.
- Affiliations
- Maastricht University (NL)
- Venue
- Brain
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-01-07
- Volume
- 133
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 868-879
- ISSN
- 0006-8950 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2156
- OpenAlex
- W2136056602
- Semantic Scholar
- 54d81053eba4f4a2c7cf39a282e8b20a9654f611
- Cited by
- 301
- References
- 56
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 23
- FWCI
- 40.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Brain (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- VU Research Portal (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- European Commission
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
- Keywords
- developmental dyslexia, reading acquisition, planum temporale, superior temporal sulcus, fusiform gyrus, audiovisual integration, reading failure, children, neural specialization
- MeSH terms
- Acoustic Stimulation, Brain, Brain Mapping, Child, Dyslexia, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Neural Pathways, Neuropsychological Tests, Phonetics, Photic Stimulation, Reading, Speech Perception, Visual Perception
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
