These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Contributions of neuroscience to the diagnosis and educational treatment of developmental dyslexia].
    Author: López-Escribano C.
    Journal: Rev Neurol; ; 44(3):173-80. PubMed ID: 17285523.
    Abstract:
    AIM: To examine the advances made in the fields of cognitive psychology, neuroscience and education and how they have contributed to each other. DEVELOPMENT: The paper offers a review of the current models of dyslexia and analyses the relation between these models and neuroimaging studies and educational intervention. The first model presented here is the 'phonological deficit' model, which is the most widely proven and accepted today. People with dyslexia have difficulty in completing tasks that involve segmenting language at a phonological level. Neuroimaging studies also reveal the existence of atypical brain activation in dyslexics while performing tasks that require phonological processing. Intervention programmes of a phonological nature have proved to be effective on both a behavioural and a neurophysiological level. Given the complexity of the reading process, further research is currently looking into other models. Although the 'temporal processing' deficit model is more controversial and not as widely accepted as the previous model, some reports provide both behavioural and neurophysiological evidence for the existence of differences in the visual and auditory processing of dyslexic and control subjects. Different educational approaches to put this temporal processing deficit to rights have been tested in dyslexic children with successful outcomes. Finally, the present status between neuroscience and education in the area of reading disorders is examined and future implications concerning the different approaches and methods used in current research are analysed. CONCLUSIONS: Although we are still a long way from understanding the causes of reading deficiencies, collaboration between neuroscience, psychology and education does help further our understanding of the psychology of reading, its diagnosis and its intervention.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]