Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:38:05.594Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The question of essential differences in developmental dyslexia: A response to Seidenberg, Bruck, Fornarolo, and Backman

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Maryanne Wolf
Maryanne Wolf*
Affiliation:
Tufts University
*
Maryanne Wolf, Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Study, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts 02155
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The well-constructed study by Seidenberg, Bruck, Fornarolo, and Backman (Applied Psycholinguistics, 6(2)) is an example of the difficulties that occur when good hypotheses and elegant designs are at variance with the realities of developmental reading disorders. My goal in this essay is to use the Seidenberg et al. study as a kind of informal assessment – both of progress in our approaches to dyslexia and of the significant issues that remain, particularly the impact of varied assumptions about homogeneity in severely impaired readers.

Type
Response Articles, Notes and Discussion
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , March 1986 , pp. 69 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Backman, J., Bruck, M., Hebert, M., & Seidenberg, M. (1984). Acquisition and use of spelling-sound correspondences in reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 38, 114–133.Google Scholar
Chall, J. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Critchley, M. (1970). The dyslexic child. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
Denckla, M. G. (1978). Minimal brain dysfunction. In Chall, J. S. & Mirksy, A. F. (Eds.), Education and the brain (pp. 223–268). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Doehring, D. G., Trites, R., Patel, P., & Fiedorowicz, A. (1981). Reading disabilities: The interaction of reading, language, and neuropsychological deficits. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, A. (in press). The cognitive neuropsychology of developmental (and acquired) dyslexia: A critical survey. Cognitive Neuropsychology.Google Scholar
Fisk, J., & Rourke, B. (1979). Identification of subtypes of learning-disabled children at ihree age levels: A neuropsychological, multivariate approach. Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology, 4, 289–310.Google Scholar
Fletcher, J., & Morris, R. (in press). Classification of disabled readers: Beyond exclusionary definitions. In S. J. Ceci (Ed.), The handbook of cognitive, social, and neuropsychological aspects of learning disabilities. Vol. 1.Google Scholar
Fowler, C., Liberman, I. Y., & Shankweiler, D. (1977). On interpreting the error pattern in beginning reading. Haskins Laboratories: Status Report on Speech Research SR-45/46.Google Scholar
Frith, U. (in press). Beneath the surface of surface dyslexia. In Patterson, K., Marshall, J., & Coltheart, M. (Eds.), Surface dyslexia. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Godfrey, J., Syrdal-Lasky, A., Millay, K., & Knox, C. (1981). Performance of dyslexic children on speech perception tests. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 32, 401–424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guttentag, R. & Haith, M. (1978). Automatic processing as a function of age and reading ability. Child Development, 49, 707–716.Google Scholar
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.Google Scholar
Liberman, A., Cooper, F., Shankweiler, D., & Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1967). Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review, 74, 431–461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liberman, I. Y., Shankweiler, D., Liberman, A. M., Fowler, C., & Fischer, F. W. (1977). Phonetic segmentation and recoding in the beginning reader. In A. S. Heber & D. L. Scarborough (Eds.), Toward a psychology of reading: The proceeds of the CUNY Conference. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lieberman, P., Meskill, R., Chatillon, M., & Schupack, H. (in press). Speech perception deficits at the phonetic level in dyslexia. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research.Google Scholar
Lovett, M. (1984). A developmental perspective on reading dysfunction: Accuracy and rate criteria in the subtyping of dyslexic children. Brain and Language, 22, 67–91.Google Scholar
Mann, V. (1984). Reading skill and language skill. Developmental Review, 4, 1–15.Google Scholar
Mattis, S., French, J., & Rapin, I. (1975). Dyslexia in children and young adults: Three independent neurological syndromes. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 17, 150–163.Google Scholar
Morris, R. (1982). Developmental classification of learning disabled children using cluster analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida.Google Scholar
Olson, R. & Davidson, B. (1985, 04). Disabled and normal readers' process profiles. Paper presented at meeting of Society for Research in Child Development, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rudel, R. G. (1983). Definition of dyslexia: Language and motor deficits. In Duffy, F., & Geschwind, N. (Eds.), Dyslexia, current status and future directions. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.Google Scholar
Siegel, L. (1981). Deep dyslexia in childhood. Paper presented at Psychonomics Society, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly 16, 32–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stemberg, R. & Wagner, R. (1982). Automatization failure in learning disabilities. Topics in Learning Disabilities, 20, 1–11.Google Scholar
Tallal, P. (1983). Neuropsychological foundations of specific developmental disorders of speech and language: Implications for theories of hemispheric specialization. In J. O. Cavenar (Ed.), Psychiatry.Google Scholar
Tallal, P. & Piercy, M. (1973). Developmental aphasia: Impaired rate of non-verbal processing as a function of sensory modality. Neuropsychologia, 11, 389–398.Google Scholar
Temple, C. (in press). Surface dyslexia: Variation within a syndrome. In Marshall, G., Patterson, K. & Coltheart, M. (Eds.), Surface dyslexia. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.Google Scholar
Temple, C., & Marshall, J. (1983). A case study of developmental phonological dyslexia. British Journal of Psychology, 74, 517–533.Google Scholar
Vellutino, F. (1982). Theoretical issues in the study of word recognition: The unit of perception controversy examined. In Rosenberg, S. (Ed.), Handbook of applied psycholinguistics. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Vellutino, F., & Scanlon, D. (10, 1984). Phonological coding, phonemic segmentation, and code acquisition in poor and normal readers. Paper presented at Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, Mass.Google Scholar
Vellutino, F., (in press). Verbal memory in poor and normal readers: Additional evidence for the verbal deficit hypothesis. In Gray, D., Pearl, D., & Kavanagh, J. (Eds.), Biobehavioral measures of dyslexia. Parkton, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Vernon, M. D. (1980). Varieties of deficiency in the reading process. In Wolf, M., McQuillan, M., Radwin, E. (Eds.), Thought and language/language and reading (pp. 588–602). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Educational Review.Google Scholar
Werker, J., Bryson, S., & Wassenberg, K. (1985, April) Consonant errors of severely disabled readers. Paper presented at meeting of Society for Research in Child Development, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Wolf, M., Bally, H., & Morris, R. (in press). Automaticity, retrieval processes and reading in average and impaired readers. Child Development.Google Scholar
Wolf, M., & Goodglass, H. (in press) Dyslexia, dysnomia, and lexical retrieval: A longitudinal study. Brain and Language.Google Scholar