Adults with dyslexia have a deficit in voice recognition

Atypical reliance on monocular visual pathway for face and word recognition in developmental dyslexia

Studies with individuals with developmental dyslexia (DD) have documented impaired perception of words and faces, both of which are domains of visual expertise for human adults. In this study, we examined a possible mechanism that might be associated with the impaired acquisition of visual expertise for words and faces in DD, namely, the atypical engagement of the monocular visual pathway. Participants with DD and typical readers (TR) judged whether a pair of sequentially presented unfamiliar faces or nonwords were the same or different, and the pair of stimuli were displayed in an eye-specific fashion using a stereoscope. Based on evidence of greater reliance on subcortical structures early in development, we predicted differences between the groups in the engagement of lower (monocular) versus higher (binocular) regions of the visual pathways. Whereas the TR group showed a monocular advantage for both stimulus types, the DD participants evinced a monocular advantage for faces and words that was much greater than that measured in the TRs. These findings indicate that the DD individuals have enhanced subcortical engagement and that this might arise from the failure to fine-tune cortical correlates mediating the discrimination of homogeneous exemplars in domains of expertise.

The Role of Visual Factors in Dyslexia

What are the causes of dyslexia? Decades of research reflect a determined search for a single cause where a common assumption is that dyslexia is a consequence of problems with converting phonological information into lexical codes. But reading is a highly complex activity requiring many well-functioning mechanisms, and several different visual problems have been documented in dyslexic readers. We critically review evidence from various sources for the role of visual factors in dyslexia, from magnocellular dysfunction through accounts based on abnormal eye movements and attentional processing, to recent proposals that problems with high-level vision contribute to dyslexia. We believe that the role of visual problems in dyslexia has been underestimated in the literature, to the detriment of the understanding and treatment of the disorder. We propose that rather than focusing on a single core cause, the role of visual factors in dyslexia fits well with risk and resilience models that assume that several variables interact throughout prenatal and postnatal development to either promote or hinder efficient reading.

Faces and words are both associated and dissociated as evidenced by visual problems in dyslexia

Faces and words are traditionally assumed to be independently processed. Dyslexia is also traditionally thought to be a non-visual deficit. Counter to both ideas, face perception deficits in dyslexia have been reported. Others report no such deficits. We sought to resolve this discrepancy. 60 adults participated in the study (24 dyslexic, 36 typical readers). Feature-based processing and configural or global form processing of faces was measured with a face matching task. Opposite laterality effects in these tasks, dependent on left-right orientation of faces, supported that they tapped into separable visual mechanisms. Dyslexic readers tended to be poorer than typical readers at feature-based face matching while no differences were found for global form face matching. We conclude that word and face perception are associated when the latter requires the processing of visual features of a face, while processing the global form of faces apparently shares minimal-if any-resources with visual word processing. The current results indicate that visual word and face processing are both associated and dissociated-but this depends on what visual mechanisms are task-relevant. We suggest that reading deficits could stem from multiple factors, and that one such factor is a problem with feature-based processing of visual objects.

Featural and configural processing of faces and houses in matched dyslexic and typical readers

While dyslexia is typically described as a phonological deficit, recent evidence suggests that ventral stream regions, important for visual categorization and object recognition, are hypoactive in dyslexic readers who might accordingly show visual recognition deficits. By manipulating featural and configural information of faces and houses, we investigated whether dyslexic readers are disadvantaged at recognizing certain object classes or using particular visual processing mechanisms. Dyslexic readers found it harder to recognize objects (houses), suggesting that visual problems in dyslexia are not completely domain-specific. Face recognition accuracy was equivalent in the two groups. Lower recognition accuracy for houses was also related to reading difficulties even when accuracy for faces was kept constant, which could indicate a specific relationship between visual word processing and visual processing of non-face objects. Representational similarity analyses (RSA) revealed that featural and configural processes were clearly separable in typical readers, which was not the case for dyslexic readers who appear to rely on a single process. This was not restricted to particular visual categories, occurring for both faces and houses. We speculate that reading deficits in some dyslexic readers reflect their reliance on a single process for object recognition.

Face recognition in developmental dyslexia: evidence for dissociation between faces and words

Developmental dyslexia is primarily a reading disorder, but recent studies have indicated that face processing problems may also be present. Using a case-series approach, we tested face recognition and visual word recognition in 24 high school students diagnosed with developmental dyslexia. Contrary to previous findings, no face recognition problems were found on the group-level. Rather, a significant classical dissociation with impaired word reading and normal face recognition was demonstrated on a group-level and for six individuals with developmental dyslexia. However, four individuals with dyslexia did show face recognition problems. Thus, while problems in face recognition can be present in developmental dyslexia, the dissociation strongly suggests that face recognition can also be preserved. Combined with previously reported dissociations between face and word recognition in developmental prosopagnosia, this constitutes a double dissociation.

Verbal and Non-verbal Fluency in Adults with Developmental Dyslexia: Phonological Processing or Executive Control Problems?

The executive function of fluency describes the ability to generate items according to specific rules. Production of words beginning with a certain letter (phonemic fluency) is impaired in dyslexia, while generation of words belonging to a certain semantic category (semantic fluency) is typically unimpaired. However, in dyslexia, verbal fluency has generally been studied only in terms of overall words produced. Furthermore, performance of adults with dyslexia on non-verbal design fluency tasks has not been explored but would indicate whether deficits could be explained by executive control, rather than phonological processing, difficulties. Phonemic, semantic and design fluency tasks were presented to adults with dyslexia and without dyslexia, using fine-grained performance measures and controlling for IQ. Hierarchical regressions indicated that dyslexia predicted lower phonemic fluency, but not semantic or design fluency. At the fine-grained level, dyslexia predicted a smaller number of switches between subcategories on phonemic fluency, while dyslexia did not predict the size of phonemically related clusters of items. Overall, the results suggested that phonological processing problems were at the root of dyslexia-related fluency deficits; however, executive control difficulties could not be completely ruled out as an alternative explanation. Developments in research methodology, equating executive demands across fluency tasks, may resolve this issue. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Drawing a distinction between familiar and unfamiliar voice processing: A review of neuropsychological, clinical and empirical findings

Thirty years on from their initial observation that familiar voice recognition is not the same as unfamiliar voice discrimination (van Lancker and Kreiman, 1987), the current paper reviews available evidence in support of a distinction between familiar and unfamiliar voice processing. Here, an extensive review of the literature is provided, drawing on evidence from four domains of interest: the neuropsychological study of healthy individuals, neuropsychological investigation of brain-damaged individuals, the exploration of voice recognition deficits in less commonly studied clinical conditions, and finally empirical data from healthy individuals. All evidence is assessed in terms of its contribution to the question of interest - is familiar voice processing distinct from unfamiliar voice processing. In this regard, the evidence provides compelling support for van Lancker and Kreiman's early observation. Two considerations result: First, the limits of research based on one or other type of voice stimulus are more clearly appreciated. Second, given the demonstration of a distinction between unfamiliar and familiar voice processing, a new wave of research is encouraged which examines the transition involved as a voice is learned.

Adults with developmental dyslexia show selective impairments in time-based and self-initiated prospective memory: Self-report and clinical evidence

BACKGROUND

Prospective memory (PM; memory for delayed intentions) would seem to be impaired in dyslexia but evidence is currently limited in scope.

AIMS

There is a need, therefore, firstly, to explore PM under controlled conditions using a broader range of PM tasks than used previously and, secondly, to determine whether objectively measured and self-reported PM problems can be found in the same individuals with dyslexia.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

The responses of 30 adults with dyslexia were compared with those of 30 IQ-matched adults without dyslexia on a self-report and a clinical measure of PM.

OUTCOMES AND RESULTS

Dyslexia-related deficits were shown on the clinical measure overall and, more particularly, when PM responses had to be made to cues based on time rather than environmental events. Adults with dyslexia were also more likely to forget to carry out an intention under naturalistic conditions 24h later. On the self-report questionnaire, the group with dyslexia reported significantly more frequent problems with PM overall, despite using more techniques to aid their memory. In particular, problems were identified with longer-term PM tasks and PM which had to be self-initiated.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Dyslexia-related PM deficits were found under both laboratory and everyday conditions in the same participants; the first time that this has been demonstrated. These findings support previous experimental research which has highlighted dyslexia-related deficits in PM when the enacting of intentions is based on time cues and/or has to be self-initiated rather than being in prompted by environmental events.

Self-Reports of Increased Prospective and Retrospective Memory Problems in Adults with Developmental Dyslexia

Short-term and working memory problems in dyslexia are well-documented, but other memory domains have received little empirical scrutiny, despite some evidence to suggest that they might be impaired. Prospective memory is memory for delayed intentions, whilst retrospective memory relates to memory for personally experienced past events. To gain an understanding of subjective everyday memory experience, a self-report measure designed to tap prospective and retrospective memory was administered to 28 adults with dyslexia and 26 IQ-matched adults without dyslexia. Adults with dyslexia reported experiencing significantly more frequent problems with memory than the adults without dyslexia. Group differences were found across seven out of the eight questionnaire scales. Further to these analyses, the participants' own ratings were compared with proxy ratings provided by close associates. The perception of poorer memory abilities in the participants did not differ between respondent types. The self-reported difficulties are, thus, unlikely to be the result of lowered self-esteem or metacognitive awareness. More frequent difficulties with both types of memory would seem, therefore, to be experienced by adults with dyslexia in everyday life. Further laboratory-based research is recommended to explore both memory domains in dyslexia and to identify the cognitive mechanisms by which these problems occur. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Executive functions in adults with developmental dyslexia

BACKGROUND

Executive functioning (EF) deficits are well recognized in developmental dyslexia, yet the majority of studies have concerned children rather than adults, ignored the subjective experience of the individual with dyslexia (with regard to their own EFs), and have not followed current theoretical perspectives on EFs.

AIMS AND METHODS

The current study addressed these shortfalls by administering a self-report measure of EF (BRIEF-A; Roth, Isquith, & Gioia, 2005) and experimental tasks to IQ-matched groups of adults with and without dyslexia. The laboratory-based tasks tested the three factors constituting the framework of EF proposed by Miyake et al. (2000).

RESULTS

In comparison to the group without dyslexia, the participants with dyslexia self-reported more frequent EF problems in day-to-day life, with these difficulties centering on metacognitive processes (working memory, planning, task monitoring, and organization) rather than on the regulation of emotion and behaviour. The participants with dyslexia showed significant deficits in EF (inhibition, set shifting, and working memory).

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The findings indicated that dyslexia-related problems have an impact on the daily experience of adults with the condition. Further, EF difficulties are present in adulthood across a range of laboratory-based measures, and, given the nature of the experimental tasks presented, extend beyond difficulties related solely to phonological processing.

Time-based prospective memory in adults with developmental dyslexia

Prospective memory (PM) is memory for delayed intentions. Despite its importance to everyday life, the few studies on PM function in adults with dyslexia which exist have relied on self-report measures. To determine whether self-reported PM deficits can be measured objectively, laboratory-based PM tasks were administered to 24 adults with dyslexia and 25 age- and IQ-matched adults without dyslexia. Self-report data indicated that people with dyslexia felt that time-based PM (TBPM; requiring responses at certain times in the future) was most problematic for them and so this form of PM was the focus of investigation. Whilst performing the ongoing task from which they were required to break out every 3 min to make a PM-related response, the participants were allowed to make clock checks whenever they wished. The cognitive demands made on ongoing behaviour were manipulated to determine whether loading executive resources had a mediating role in dyslexia-related deficits in PM, resulting in three tasks with varying working memory load. A semi-naturalistic TBPM task was also administered, in which the participants were asked to remind the experimenter to save a data file 40 min after being given this instruction. Dyslexia-related differences were found across all three computerized tasks, regardless of cognitive load. The adults with dyslexia made fewer correct PM responses and also fewer clock checks. On the semi-naturalistic task, the participants with dyslexia were less likely to remember to remind the experimenter to save the file. This is the first study to document PM deficits in dyslexia using objective measures of performance. Since TBPM impairments were found under more naturalistic conditions as well as on computerized tasks, the results have implications for workplace support for adults with dyslexia.

Pragmatic abilities in adults with and without dyslexia: a pilot study

This study examines well-compensated adults with dyslexia to see if they experience more problems with pragmatic awareness than the normal population. Social interaction requires an individual to process language at speed by using working memory efficiently, in order to understand the intended, rather than literal, meaning between speaker and hearer. Previous studies have shown evidence amongst the dyslexic population of poor working memory capacity, slower speed of processing and automatization deficit. It is proposed that a dyslexic may not be able to interpret pragmatic content as efficiently as non-dyslexics, due to the need for fast processing in such circumstances, resulting in resource overload and over-intensity of memory. The study compares the score results of 20 dyslexic and 20 non-dyslexic adults on the Dyslexia Adult Screening Test (DAST), the Right Hemisphere Language Battery and the author's own pragmatic competence questionnaire. The results for all three measures indicate a statistically significant difference in pragmatic competence between the two groups and appear to demonstrate a correlation between dyslexia and pragmatic impairment. Consideration of individual subtest items on the DAST lend support to the argument that this may be due to deficits in working memory, processing and automatization.

Working memory functioning in developmental dyslexia

Working memory impairments in dyslexia are well documented. However, research has mostly been limited to the phonological domain, a modality in which people with dyslexia have a range of problems. In this paper, 22 adult students with dyslexia and 22 age- and IQ-matched controls were presented with both verbal and visuospatial working memory tasks. Performance was compared on measures of simple span, complex span (requiring both storage and processing), and dynamic memory updating in the two domains. The dyslexic group had significantly lower spans than the controls on all the verbal tasks, both simple and complex, and also on the spatial complex span measure. Impairments remained on the complex span measures after controlling statistically for simple span performance, suggesting a central executive impairment in dyslexia. The novelty of task demands on the initial trials of the spatial updating task also proved more problematic for the dyslexic than control participants. The results are interpreted in terms of extant theories of dyslexia. The possibility of a supervisory attentional system deficit in dyslexia is also raised. It seems clear that working memory difficulties in dyslexia extend into adulthood, can affect performance in both the phonological and visuospatial modalities, and implicate central executive dysfunction, in addition to problems with storage.

Specific learning disabilities: a neuropsychological perspective

A dispersion in cognitive abilities is expected in normal populations. Specific learning disabilities would represent an extreme polarity in a continuum of normal cognitive dispersion. Three propositions relative to learning disabilities are advanced in the present paper. First, specific learning disabilities are expected to be found for diverse cognitive functions, even though some of these specific learning disorders have yet to be described in scientific literature. Second, it is noted that specific "factors" can be affected in cases of learning disabilities. Lastly, a parallel between focal neuropsychological syndromes and specific learning disabilities is proposed. Developmental learning difficulties would represent dysfunctional or dysmaturational defects; whereas neuropsychological syndromes represent a consequence of acquired structural brain pathology.