A sensory-linguistic approach to normal and impaired reading development

In this chapter we outline a sensory-linguistic approach to the, study of reading skill development. We call this a sensory-linguistic approach because the focus of interest is on the relationship between basic sensory processing skills and the ability to extract efficiently the orthographic and phonological information available in text during reading. Our review discusses how basic sensory processing deficits are associated with developmental dyslexia, and how these impairments may degrade word-decoding skills. We then review studies that demonstrate a more direct relationship between sensitivity to particular types of auditory and visual stimuli and the normal development of literacy skills. Specifically, we suggest that the phonological and orthographic skills engaged while reading are constrained by the ability to detect and discriminate dynamic stimuli in the auditory and visual systems respectively.

Investigation of dyslexia and SLI risk variants in reading- and language-impaired subjects

Dyslexia (or reading disability) and specific language impairment (or SLI) are common childhood disorders that show considerable co-morbidity and diagnostic overlaps and have been suggested to share some genetic aetiology. Recently, genetic risk variants have been identified for SLI and dyslexia enabling the direct evaluation of possible shared genetic influences between these disorders. In this study we investigate the role of variants in these genes (namely MRPL19/C20RF3, ROBO1, DCDC2, KIAA0319, DYX1C1, CNTNAP2, ATP2C2 and CMIP) in the aetiology of SLI and dyslexia. We perform case–control and quantitative association analyses using measures of oral and written language skills in samples of SLI and dyslexic families and cases. We replicate association between KIAA0319 and DCDC2 and dyslexia and provide evidence to support a role for KIAA0319 in oral language ability. In addition, we find association between reading-related measures and variants in CNTNAP2 and CMIP in the SLI families.

Separating the influences of prereading skills on early word and nonword reading

The essential first step for a beginning reader is to learn to match printed forms to phonological representations. For a new word, this is an effortful process where each grapheme must be translated individually (serial decoding). The role of phonological awareness in developing a decoding strategy is well known. We examined whether beginner readers recruit different skills depending on the nature of the words being read (familiar words vs. nonwords). Print knowledge, phoneme and rhyme awareness, rapid automatized naming (RAN), phonological short term memory (STM), nonverbal reasoning, vocabulary, auditory skills and visual attention were measured in 392 pre-readers aged 4 to 5 years. Word and nonword reading were measured 9 months later. We used structural equation modeling to examine the skills-reading relationship and modeled correlations between our two reading outcomes and among all pre-reading skills. We found that a broad range of skills were associated with reading outcomes: early print knowledge, phonological STM, phoneme awareness and RAN. Whereas all these skills were directly predictive of nonword reading, early print knowledge was the only direct predictor of word reading. Our findings suggest that beginner readers draw most heavily on their existing print knowledge to read familiar words.

What drives the prediction of early reading? An analysis of stimulus and response-type

Purpose: Phonological accounts of reading implicate three aspects of phonological awareness tasks that underlie the relationship with reading; a) the language-based nature of the stimuli (words or nonwords), b) the verbal nature of the response, and c) the complexity of the stimuli (words can be segmented into units of speech). Yet, it is uncertain which task characteristics are most important as they are typically confounded. By systematically varying response-type and stimulus complexity across speech and non-speech stimuli, the current study seeks to isolate the characteristics of phonological awareness tasks that drive the prediction of early reading. Method: Four sets of tasks were created; tone stimuli (simple non-speech) requiring a non-verbal response, phonemes (simple speech) requiring a non-verbal response, phonemes requiring a verbal response, and nonwords (complex speech) requiring a verbal response. Tasks were administered to 570 2nd grade children along with standardized tests of reading and non-verbal IQ. Results: Three structural equation models comparing matched sets of tasks were built. Each model consisted of two 'task' factors with a direct link to a reading factor. The following factors predicted unique variance in reading: a) simple speech and non-speech stimuli, b) simple speech requiring a verbal response but not simple speech requiring a non-verbal-response, and c) complex and simple speech stimuli. Conclusions: Results suggest that the prediction of reading by phonological tasks is driven by the verbal nature of the response and not the complexity or 'speechness' of the stimuli. Findings highlight the importance of phonological output processes to early reading.

Early predictors of phonological and morphological awareness and the link with reading:evidence from children with different patterns of early deficit

This study examines the contribution of early phonological processing (PP) and language skills on later phonological awareness (PA) and morphological awareness (MA), as well as the links among PA, MA, and reading. Children 4-6 years of age with poor PP at the start of school showed weaker PA and MA 3 years later (age 7-9), regardless of their language skills. PA and phonological and morphological strategies predict reading accuracy, whereas MA predicts reading comprehension. Our findings suggest that children with poor early PP are more at risk of developing deficits in MA and PA than children with poor language. They also suggest that there is a direct link between PA and reading accuracy and between MA and reading comprehension that cannot be accounted for by strategy use at the word level.