A stimulus-centered reading disorder for words and numbers: Is it neglect dyslexia?

The Focal Attention Window Size Explains Letter Substitution Errors in Reading

Acquired Neglect Dyslexia is often associated with right-hemisphere brain damage and is mainly characterized by omissions and substitutions in reading single words. Martelli et al. proposed in 2011 that these two types of error are due to different mechanisms. Omissions should depend on neglect plus an oculomotor deficit, whilst substitutions on the difficulty with which the letters are perceptually segregated from each other (i.e., crowding phenomenon). In this study, we hypothesized that a deficit of focal attention could determine a pathological crowding effect, leading to imprecise letter identification and consequently substitution errors. In Experiment 1, three brain-damaged patients, suffering from peripheral dyslexia, mainly characterized by substitutions, underwent an assessment of error distribution in reading pseudowords and a T detection task as a function of cue size and timing, in order to measure focal attention. Each patient, when compared to a control group, showed a deficit in adjusting the attentional focus. In Experiment 2, a group of 17 right-brain-damaged patients were asked to perform the focal attention task and to read single words and pseudowords as a function of inter-letter spacing. The results allowed us to confirm a more general association between substitution-type reading errors and the performance in the focal attention task.

Dissociating spatial attention from neglect dyslexia: A single case study

Word-centred neglect dyslexia is generally thought to be caused by a visuospatial neglect-like attentional deficit which impacts orientation-canonical representations of visual stimuli. However, the relationship between word-centred neglect dyslexia and more general attentional processes is not well described. Here, we investigated the impact of attentional load manipulations within a case of word-centred neglect dyslexia. This study presents data from a single case, Patient CD, who exhibited ipsilesional word-centred neglect dyslexia in conjunction with severe, contralesional allocentric neglect. CD demonstrated an intact ability to name all letters in visually presented words, but committed neglect dyslexia errors when subsequently asked to read the same word as a whole. The severity of patient CD's neglect dyslexia was not found to be impacted by attentional manipulations. We found no effect of exposure time or visual crowding on the frequency of neglect dyslexia errors. This absence of an apparent, right-lateralised perceptual deficit, comorbid left-lateralised object-centred neglect, and insensitivity to attentional load manipulations suggests that the deficit underlying word-centred neglect dyslexia is not related to broad visuo-spatial attention. These findings suggest that neglect dyslexia and domain-general visuospatial neglect may not be as related as previously asserted.

What role for prism adaptation in the rehabilitation of pure neglect dyslexia?

Prism adaptation (PA) has been successfully applied in the rehabilitation of spatial neglect, with significant transfer to classic neglect tests and activities of daily living. However, well-controlled studies were unable to replicate these findings, and recent reports suggest that PA may affect selectively visuo-motor symptoms. Here, a patient with pure left neglect dyslexia was tested before, immediately after, and 24 h after PA. Despite a significant adaptation aftereffect adaptation had no effect omissions, substitutions and letter-based errors. PA does not affect pure neglect dyslexia and should therefore be reserved for the rehabilitation of motor-intentional, rather than visual-attentional symptoms.

Assessment of neglect dyslexia with functional reading materials

BACKGROUND

Spatial neglect is a neurocognitive disorder that affects perception, representation, and/or motor planning. Neglect dyslexia in spatial neglect after right hemisphere damage may co-occur with, or be dissociated from, other spatial neglect signs. Previous neglect dyslexia research focused on word-level stimuli and reading errors. Using single words for assessment may leave some people with neglect dyslexia undiagnosed, and assessment materials that are closer to texts read in real life may better capture neglect dyslexia.

METHOD

The authors tested reading in 67 right hemisphere stroke survivors with 4 types of text materials: words, phrases, an article, and a menu.

RESULTS

Accuracy on reading the menu and article texts was significantly poorer than reading the words and phrases. The hypothesis that assessment materials with ecological validity such as reading a menu and reading an article may be more challenging than reading single words and phrases was supported.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that neglect dyslexia assessment after stroke should include text materials comparable to those read in everyday life. Increasing the spatial extent of training materials in future research might also yield better functional generalization after right brain stroke.

Neglect dyslexia: a matter of "good looking"

Brain-damaged patients with right-sided unilateral spatial neglect (USN) often make left-sided errors in reading single words or pseudowords (neglect dyslexia, ND). We propose that both left neglect and low fixation accuracy account for reading errors in neglect dyslexia. Eye movements were recorded in USN patients with (ND+) and without (ND-) neglect dyslexia and in a matched control group of right brain-damaged patients without neglect (USN-). Unlike ND- and controls, ND+ patients showed left lateralized omission errors and a distorted eye movement pattern in both a reading aloud task and a non-verbal saccadic task. During reading, the total number of fixations was larger in these patients independent of visual hemispace, and most fixations were inaccurate. Similarly, in the saccadic task only ND+ patients were unable to reach the moving dot. A third experiment addressed the nature of the left lateralization in reading error distribution by simulating neglect dyslexia in ND- patients. ND- and USN- patients had to perform a speeded reading-at-threshold task that did not allow for eye movements. When stimulus exploration was prevented, ND- patients, but not controls, produced a pattern of errors similar to that of ND+ with unlimited exposure time (e.g., left-sided errors). We conclude that neglect dyslexia reading errors may arise in USN patients as a consequence of an additional and independent deficit unrelated to the orthographic material. In particular, the presence of an altered oculo-motor pattern, preventing the automatic execution of the fine saccadic eye movements involved in reading, uncovers, in USN patients, the attentional bias also in reading single centrally presented words.

Error types and error positions in neglect dyslexia: comparative analyses in neglect patients and healthy controls

Unilateral spatial neglect frequently involves a lateralised reading disorder, neglect dyslexia (ND). Reading of single words in ND is characterised by left-sided omissions and substitutions of letters. However, it is unclear whether the distribution of error types and positions within a word shows a unique pattern of ND when directly compared to healthy controls. This question has been difficult to answer so far, given the usually low number of reading errors in healthy controls. Therefore, the present study compared single word reading of 18 patients with left-sided neglect, due to right-hemisphere stroke, and 11 age-matched healthy controls, and adjusted individual task difficulty (by varying stimulus presentation times in participants) in order to reach approximately equal error rates between neglect patients and controls. Results showed that, while both omission and substitution errors were frequently produced in neglect patients and controls, only omissions appeared neglect-specific when task difficulty was adapted between groups. Analyses of individual letter positions within words revealed that the spatial distribution of reading errors in the neglect dyslexic patients followed an almost linear increase from the end to the beginning of the word (right-to-left-gradient). Both, the gradient in error positions and the predominance of omission errors presented a neglect-specific pattern. Consistent with current models of visual word processing, these findings suggest that ND reflects sublexical, visuospatial attentional mechanisms in letter string encoding.

Two different mechanisms for omission and substitution errors in neglect dyslexia

Neglect dyslexia is a reading disorder often associated with right-sided brain lesions. In reading single words, errors are mostly substitutions or omissions of letters that occupy the left-sided positions. Typically, these errors have been thought to depend on a single mechanism. Conversely, we propose that they are due to different mechanisms. In particular, a visuo-spatial mechanism is responsible for omissions and a perceptual integration process for substitution errors. We measured the performance of six patients with both neglect and neglect dyslexia, analyzing their reading errors as a function of letter spacing. According to our conjecture, letter spacing should increase omissions by moving part of the string further in the unattended space, while it should reduce substitutions by restoring the integration processes. Furthermore, we predict that letter spacing should be more effective with pseudowords compared to words, in that in this latter case lexical effects are supposed to influence attentional and perceptual processes. Accordingly, we found that for pseudowords only the two types of errors are differently affected by this manipulation and only omissions correlate with the severity of the disorder in visuo-spatial tasks.