CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,173Reading and Literacy DevelopmentDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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., Frith, U.·2001·Science
DOI 10.1126/science.1057179
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The recognition of dyslexia as a neurodevelopmental disorder has been hampered by the belief that it is not a specific diagnostic entity because it has variable and culture-specific manifestations. In line with this belief, we found that Italian dyslexics, using a shallow orthography which facilitates reading, performed better on reading tasks than did English and French dyslexics. However, all dyslexics were equally impaired relative to their controls on reading and phonological tasks. Positron emission tomography scans during explicit and implicit reading showed the same reduced activity in a region of the left hemisphere in dyslexics from all three countries, with the maximum peak in the middle temporal gyrus and additional peaks in the inferior and superior temporal gyri and middle occipital gyrus. We conclude that there is a universal neurocognitive basis for dyslexia and that differences in reading performance among dyslexics of different countries are due to different orthographies.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1126/science.1057179

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 21 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Smith S. D., Kelley P. M., Brower A. M., Hum. Biol. 70, 239 (1998).
  2. M. Snowling Dyslexia (Blackwell Oxford 2000).
  3. A complete description of the methods and results is available at www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5511/2165/DC1.
  4. K. Friston in Human Brain Function R. Frackowiak K. Friston C. Frith R. Dolan J. Mazziotta Eds. (Academic Press San Diego CA 1997) pp. 25–41.
  5. PET experiments: There were two PET scan experiments involving 72 of the aforementioned subjects (17) (36 subjects for each experiment 24 for each country half of whom were dyslexics). In the explicit reading experiment subjects read bisyllabic words and nonwords aloud. In the implicit reading experiment participants performed a feature detection task. Subjects detected the presence or absence of ascenders (graphic features which go above the midline of the word e.g. “b ” “l ” and “t” as opposed to “a ” “c ” and “o”) within visually presented words nonwords and false font strings. The false fonts were created by substituting letters in the real words with nonletters matched for size and presence or absence of ascenders (e.g. see “cannon” and “meter” in Scheme 1). Subjects pressed one key with their right-hand index finger if one or more ascender was present and another key with their right middle finger if no ascenders were present. These studies were approved by the ethics committees of the Institute of Neurology (London) and Institute H San Raffaele (Milan). Informed consent was obtained after the nature and possible consequences of the studies were explained to the volunteers. Data analysis: rCBF was measured by recording the distribution of radioactivity following the intravenous injection of 15 O-labeled water (H 2 15 O). Twelve consecutive scans were obtained for each subject in each experiment. Task-related differences in rCBF were examined using Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM'96) software (Wellcome Department of Cognitive Neurology London UK) on stereotactically normalized and smoothed PET images. For each experiment data were analyzed according to a random effects model: replications of each task were collapsed into average images to give one average scan per reading task per subject. The analysis was based on a 2 (controls versus dyslexics) × 3 (French English Italian subjects) × 2 (implicit explicit reading) × 3 (words nonwords baseline) factorial design. The pattern of activation associated with reading was identified as the conjunction of the six main effects of reading (reading minus baseline) in each of the six groups of controls (Fig. 3A) and in each of the six groups of dyslexics (Fig. 3B). We then calculated the differences between controls and dyslexics as the conjunction of the six groups × task interaction effects (Fig. 3C). The interaction effects were computed on the voxels identified by the linear contrast of the relevant main effects.
  6. C. Price in (19) pp. 301–328.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 1,000

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Paulesu, E., Démonet, J.-F., Fazio, F., McCrory, E., Chanoine, V., Brunswick, N., Cappa, S. F., Cossu, G., Habib, M., Frith, C. D., & Frith, U.
Affiliations
  • IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele (IT)
  • INSERM U455, Hôpital Purpan, Toulouse, France.
  • University College London (GB)
  • Inserm (FR)
  • UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology (GB)
  • Vita-Salute San Raffaele University (IT)
  • University of Parma (IT)
  • Institut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal (CA)
  • Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, UK.
Corresponding author
Paulesu, E.
ORCID
Venue
Science
Publisher
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Published
2001-03-16
Volume
291
Issue
5511
Pages
2165-2167
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
DOI
10.1126/science.1057179
OpenAlex
W2139610547
Cited by
1,173
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 49 · 2014: 86 · 2013: 55 · 2012: 74
FWCI
92.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL AMU (submittedVersion)
  • BOA (University of Milano-Bicocca) (submittedVersion)
  • Middlesex University Research Repository (Middlesex University Of London) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Oskar-Bordeaux (Universite de Bordeaux) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Keywords
dyslexia, neurodevelopmental disorders, orthography, reading achievement, phonological processing, cross-cultural comparison, middle temporal gyrus, left hemisphere activation
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Culture, Dyslexia, France, United Kingdom, Humans, Italy, Language, Male, Occipital Lobe, Reading, Regional Blood Flow, Temporal Lobe, Tomography, Emission-Computed, Matched-Pair Analysis

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