Lexical and nonlexical processing in developmental dyslexia: a case for different resources and different impairments

In a group of adult dyslexics word reading and, especially, word spelling are predicted more by what we have called lexical learning (tapped by a paired-associate task with pictures and written nonwords) than by phonological skills. Nonword reading and spelling, instead, are not associated with this task but they are predicted by phonological tasks. Consistently, surface and phonological dyslexics show opposite profiles on lexical learning and phonological tasks. The phonological dyslexics are more impaired on the phonological tasks, while the surface dyslexics are equally or more impaired on the lexical learning tasks. Finally, orthographic lexical learning explains more variation in spelling than in reading, and subtyping based on spelling returns more interpretable results than that based on reading. These results suggest that the quality of lexical representations is crucial to adult literacy skills. This is best measured by spelling and best predicted by a task of lexical learning. We hypothesize that lexical learning taps a uniquely human capacity to form new representations by recombining the units of a restricted set.

Length, lexicality, and articulatory suppression in immediate recall:evidence against the articulatory loop

Influential models of short-term memory have attributed the fact that short words are recalled better than longer words in serial recall (the length effect) to articulatory rehearsal. Crucial for this link is the finding that the length effect disappears under articulatory suppression. We show, instead, that, under suppression, the length effect is abolished or reversed for real words but remains robust for nonwords. The latter finding is demonstrated in a variety of conditions: with lists of three and four nonwords, with nonwords drawn from closed and open sets, with spoken and written presentation, and with written and spoken output. Our interpretation is that the standard length effect derives from the number of phonological units to be retained. The length effect is abolished or reversed under suppression because this condition encourages reliance on lexical-semantic representations. Using these representations, longer words can more easily be reconstructed from degraded phonology than shorter words. © 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Reduced attentional capacity, but normal processing speed and shifting of attention in developmental dyslexia: evidence from a serial task

We report the performance of a group of adult dyslexics and matched controls in an array-matching task where two strings of either consonants or symbols are presented side by side and have to be judged to be the same or different. The arrays may differ either in the order or identity of two adjacent characters. This task does not require naming – which has been argued to be the cause of dyslexics’ difficulty in processing visual arrays – but, instead, has a strong serial component as demonstrated by the fact that, in both groups, Reaction times (RTs) increase monotonically with position of a mismatch. The dyslexics are clearly impaired in all conditions and performance in the identity conditions predicts performance across orthographic tasks even after age, performance IQ and phonology are partialled out. Moreover, the shapes of serial position curves are revealing of the underlying impairment. In the dyslexics, RTs increase with position at the same rate as in the controls (lines are parallel) ruling out reduced processing speed or difficulties in shifting attention. Instead, error rates show a catastrophic increase for positions which are either searched later or more subject to interference. These results are consistent with a reduction in the attentional capacity needed in a serial task to bind together identity and positional information. This capacity is best seen as a reduction in the number of spotlights into which attention can be split to process information at different locations rather than as a more generic reduction of resources which would also affect processing the details of single objects.

Encoding order and developmental dyslexia:a family of skills predicting different orthographic components

We investigated order encoding in developmental dyslexia using a task that presented nonalphanumeric visual characters either simultaneously or sequentially—to tap spatial and temporal order encoding, respectively—and asked participants to reproduce their order. Dyslexic participants performed poorly in the sequential condition, but normally in the simultaneous condition, except for positions most susceptible to interference. These results are novel in demonstrating a selective difficulty with temporal order encoding in a dyslexic group. We also tested the associations between our order reconstruction tasks and: (a) lexical learning and phonological tasks; and (b) different reading and spelling tasks. Correlations were extensive when the whole group of participants was considered together. When dyslexics and controls were considered separately, different patterns of association emerged between orthographic tasks on the one side and tasks tapping order encoding, phonological processing, and written learning on the other. These results indicate that different skills support different aspects of orthographic processing and are impaired to different degrees in individuals with dyslexia. Therefore, developmental dyslexia is not caused by a single impairment, but by a family of deficits loosely related to difficulties with order. Understanding the contribution of these different deficits will be crucial to deepen our understanding of this disorder.

Adults with dyslexia can use cues to orient and constrain attention but have a smaller and weaker attention spotlight

We report results from two experiments assessing distribution of attention and cue use in adults with dyslexia (AwD) and in a group of typically reading controls. Experiment 1 showed normal effects of cueing in AwD, with faster responses when probes were presented within a cued area and normal effects of eccentricity and stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). In addition, AwD showed stronger benefits of a longer SOA when they had to move attention farther, and stronger effects of inclusion on the left, suggesting that cueing is particularly important in more difficult conditions. Experiment 2 tested the use of cues in a texture detection task involving a wider range of eccentricities and a shorter SOA. In this paradigm, focused attention at the central location is actually detrimental and cueing further reduces performance. Thus, if AwD have a more distributed attention, they should show a reduced performance drop at central locations and, if they do not use cues, they should show less negative effects of cueing. In contrast, AwD showed a larger drop and a positive effect of cueing. These results are better accounted for by a smaller and weaker spotlight of attention. Performance does not decrease at central locations because the attentional spotlight is already deployed with maximum intensity, which cannot be further enhanced at central locations. Instead, use of cueing helps to focus limited resources. Cues orient attention to the right area without enhancing it to the point where this is detrimental for texture detection. Implications for reading are discussed.