CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 231Reading and Literacy DevelopmentNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismVisual perception and processing mechanisms

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Dissociation of Normal Feature Analysis and Deficient Processing of Letter-strings in Dyslexic Adults

Open access
Helenius, P.·1999·Cerebral Cortex
DOI 10.1093/cercor/9.5.476
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Neuroimaging studies have revealed that the functional organization of reading differs between developmentally dyslexic and non-impaired individuals. However, it is not clear how early in the reading process the differences between fluent and dyslexic readers start to emerge. We studied cortical activity of ten dyslexic adults using magnetoencephalography (MEG), as they silently read words or viewed symbol-strings which were clearly visible or degraded with Gaussian noise. This method has previously been used to dissociate between analysis of local features and pre-lexical word processing in fluent adult readers. Signals peaking around 100 ms after stimulus onset and originating in the postero-medial extrastriate cortex were associated with increasing local luminance contrast in the noise patches. These early visual responses were similar in dyslexic and non-impaired readers. In contrast, the letter-string-specific responses peaking around 150 ms predominantly in the left inferior occipito-temporal cortex in fluent readers were undetectable in dyslexic readers. Thus, while the early visual processing seems intact in dyslexic adults, the pattern of cortical activation starts to differ from that of fluent readers at the point where letter-string-specific signals first emerge during reading.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/cercor/9.5.476

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 231

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Helenius, P.
Corresponding author
Helenius, P.
ORCID
Helenius, P.
Venue
Cerebral Cortex
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
1999-07-01
Volume
9
Issue
5
Pages
476-483
ISSN
  • 1047-3211 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2199
DOI
10.1093/cercor/9.5.476
OpenAlex
W2136257607
Cited by
231
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 11
FWCI
17.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cerebral Cortex (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
developmental dyslexia, reading, early visual processing, luminance contrast, extrastriate cortex, magnetoencephalography, cortical activation
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Dyslexia, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Processes, Reading, Reference Values, Magnetoencephalography, Case-Control Studies

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