Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:06:11.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A test of the cerebellar hypothesis of dyslexia in adequate and inadequate responders to reading intervention

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 March 2010

AMY E. BARTH ,
CAROLYN A. DENTON ,
KARLA K. STUEBING ,
JACK M. FLETCHER ,
PAUL T. CIRINO ,
DAVID J. FRANCIS  and
SHARON VAUGHN
AMY E. BARTH*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Texas Institute of Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistics, Texas Center for Learning Disabilities, University of Houston, Houston, Texas
CAROLYN A. DENTON
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Learning Institute, Texas Center for Learning Disabilities, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston, Texas
KARLA K. STUEBING
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Texas Institute of Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistics, Texas Center for Learning Disabilities, University of Houston, Houston, Texas
JACK M. FLETCHER
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Texas Center for Learning Disabilities, University of Houston, Houston, Texas
PAUL T. CIRINO
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Texas Institute of Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistics, Texas Center for Learning Disabilities, University of Houston, Houston, Texas
DAVID J. FRANCIS
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Texas Institute of Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistics, Texas Center for Learning Disabilities, University of Houston, Houston, Texas
SHARON VAUGHN
Affiliation:
Department of Special Education: Learning Disabilities/Behavioral Disabilities Program, Texas Center for Learning Disabilities, University of Texas-Austin, Austin, Texas
*
*Correspondence and reprint requests to: Amy E. Barth, University of Houston, Department of Psychology, 2151 West Holcombe, 222 Texas Medical Center Annex, Houston, Texas 77204-5053. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The cerebellar hypothesis of dyslexia posits that cerebellar deficits are associated with reading disabilities and may explain why some individuals with reading disabilities fail to respond to reading interventions. We tested these hypotheses in a sample of children who participated in a grade 1 reading intervention study (n = 174) and a group of typically achieving children (n = 62). At posttest, children were classified as adequately responding to the intervention (n = 82), inadequately responding with decoding and fluency deficits (n = 36), or inadequately responding with only fluency deficits (n = 56). Based on the Bead Threading and Postural Stability subtests from the Dyslexia Screening Test-Junior, we found little evidence that assessments of cerebellar functions were associated with academic performance or responder status. In addition, we did not find evidence supporting the hypothesis that cerebellar deficits are more prominent for poor readers with “specific” reading disabilities (i.e., with discrepancies relative to IQ) than for poor readers with reading scores consistent with IQ. In contrast, measures of phonological awareness, rapid naming, and vocabulary were strongly associated with responder status and academic outcomes. These results add to accumulating evidence that fails to associate cerebellar functions with reading difficulties. (JINS, 2010, 16, 526–536.)

Keywords

DyslexiaCerebellumResponse to interventionReading disabilitiesPhonological awarenessRapid naming
Type
Research Articles
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , May 2010 , pp. 526 - 536
Copyright
Copyright © The International Neuropsychological Society 2010

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

Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). Who are the young children for whom best practices in reading are ineffective? An experimental and longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 414–431.Google Scholar
Benton, A.L. (1975). Development dyslexia: Neurological aspects. In Friedlander, W.J. (Ed.), Advances in neurology: Vol. 7. (pp. 1–47). New York: Raven Press.Google Scholar
Berninger, V. (1998). Process assessment of the learner (PAL). Guides for intervention. Reading and Writing. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Bishop, D.V.M. (2007). Curing dyslexia and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder by training motor co-ordination: Miracle or cure? Journal of Pediatrics and Child Health 43, 653–655.Google Scholar
Brambati, S.M., Termine, C., Ruffino, M., Stella, G., Fazio, F., Cappa, S.F., et al. (2004). Regional reductions of gray matter volume in familial dyslexia. Neurology, 63, 742–745.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cirino, P.T. (2009). Kindergarten precursors of math and reading. Manuscript under review.Google Scholar
Denckla, M.B., Rudel, M.B., Krieger, R.G., & Chapman, J. (1985). Motor proficiency in dyslexic children with and without attentional disorders. Archives of Neurology, 42, 228–231.Google Scholar
Denton, C.A., Fletcher, J.M., Cirino, P.T., Barth, A.E., Vaughn, S., & Francis, D.J. (2009). Intensity and duration of Tier 2 reading interventions. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
Doehring, D.G. (1978). The tangled web of behavioral research on developmental dyslexia. In Benton, A.L., and Pearl, D. (Eds.), Dyslexia: An appraisal of current research (pp. 123–137). New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
Dore, W. (2006). Dyslexia: The miracle cure. London: John Blake Publishing.Google Scholar
Eckert, M.A., Leonard, C.M., Richards, T.L., Aylward, E.H., Thomson, J., & Berninger, V.W. (2003). Anatomical correlates of dyslexia: Frontal and cerebellar findings. Brain, 126, 482–494.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fawcett, A.J., & Nicolson, R.I. (2004). The dyslexia screening test-Junior. London: Harcourt Assessment.Google Scholar
Finch, A.J., Nicolson, R.I., & Fawcett, A.J. (2002). Evidence for a neuroanatomical difference within the olivo-cerbellar pathway of adults with dyslexia. Cortex, 38, 529–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, J.M. (2009). Dyslexia: The evolution of a scientific concept. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 15, 501–508.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fletcher, J.M., Lyon, G.R., Fuchs, L.S., & Barnes, M.A. (2007). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Fletcher, J.M., Shaywitz, S.E., Shankweiler, D., Katz, L., Liberman, I.Y., Stuebing, K.K., et al. (1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of discrepancy and low achievement definitions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 6–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, A.S., & Kaufman, N.L. (2004). Kaufman brief intelligence test. (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessment.Google Scholar
Kibby, M.Y., Francher, J.B., Markanen, R., Lewandowski, A., & Hynd, G.W. (2003, February). A test of the cerebellar deficit hypothesis of dyslexia Poster session presented at the annual thirty-first meeting of the International Neuropsychological Society, Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar
Kieling, C., Goncalves, R.R., Tannock, R., & Castellanos, F.X. (2008). Neurobiology of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 17, 285–307.Google Scholar
Laycock, S., Wilkinson, I., Wallis, L., Darwent, G., Wonders, S., Fawcett, A., et al. (2008). Cerebellar volume and cerebellar metabolic characteristics in adults with dyslexia. In Eden, G., & Flowers, L. (Eds.), Learning, skill acquisition, reading, and dyslexia (pp. 222–236). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Liberman, I.Y., & Shankweiler, D. (1991). Phonology and beginning reading: A tutorial. In Rieben, L., & Perfetti, C.A. (Eds.), Learning to read: Basic research and its implications (pp. 3–17). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lyon, G.R., Shaywitz, S.E., & Shaywitz, B.A. (2003). A definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 1–14.Google Scholar
Mann, L. (1979). On the trail of process. New York: Grune & Stratton.Google Scholar
Mathes, P.G., & Torgesen, J.K. (2008). Continuous monitoring of early reading skills. Dallas, TX: Istation.Google Scholar
Nelson, R.J., Benner, G.J., & Gonzalez, J. (2003). Learner characteristics that influence the treatment effectiveness of early literacy interventions: A meta-analytic review. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 255–267.Google Scholar
Nicolson, R.I., & Fawcett, A.J. (1990). Automaticity: A new framework for dyslexia research? Cognition, 35, 159–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicolson, R.I., & Fawcett, A.J. (2005). Developmental dyslexia, learning and the cerebellum. Journal of Neural Transmission Supplementum, 19–36.Google Scholar
Nicolson, R.I., & Fawcett, A.J. (2007). Procedural learning difficulties: Reuniting the developmental disorders. Trends in Neurosciences, 30, 135–141.Google Scholar
Pennington, B.F. (2009). Diagnosing learning disorders: A neuropsychological framework (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Raberger, T., & Wimmer, H. (2003). On the automaticity/cerebellar deficit hypothesis of dyslexia: Balancing and continuous rapid naming in dyslexic and AD/HD children. Neuropsychologia, 41, 1493–1497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rae, C., Harasty, J.A., Dzendrowskyj, T.E., Talcott, J.B., Simpson, J.M., Blarmire, A.M., et al. (2002). Cerebellar morphology in developmental dyslexia. Neuropsychologia, 40, 1285–1292.Google Scholar
Ramus, D. (2003). Developmental dyslexia: Specific phonological deficit or general sensorimotor dysfunction. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 13, 212–218.Google Scholar
Ramus, F., Pidgeon, E., & Frith, U. (2003). The relationship between motor control and phonology in dyslexic children. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 44, 712–722.Google Scholar
Ramus, F., Rosen, S., Dakin, S., Day, B.L., Castellote, J.M., White, S., et al. (2003). Theories of developmental dyslexia: Insights from a multiple case study of dyslexic adults. Brain, 126, 841–865.Google Scholar
Reynolds, D., & Nicolson, R.I. (2008). Comment on “curing dyslexia and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder by training motor co-ordination: Miracle or myth?” Journal of Pediatrics and Child Health, 44, 521–522.Google Scholar
Reynolds, D., Nicolson, R.I., & Hambly, H. (2003). Evaluation of an exercise-based treatment for children with reading difficulties. Dyslexia, 9, 48–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouse, C.E., & Krueger, A.B. (2004). Putting computerized instruction to the test: A randomized evaluation of a “scientifically based” reading program. Economics of Education Review, 23, 323–338.Google Scholar
Savage, R., Frederickson, N., Goodwin, R., Patni, U., Smith, N., et al. , (2005). Evaluating current deficit theories of poor reading: Role of phonological processing, naming speed, balance automaticity, rapid verbal perception, and working memory, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 101, 345–361.Google ScholarPubMed
Snowling, M.J. (2000). Dyslexia. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Snowling, M.J., & Hulme, C. (2003). A critique of claims from Reynolds, Nicolson & Hambly (2003) that DDAT is an effective treatment for children with reading difficulties – ‘lies, damned lies and (inappropriate) statistics?’ Dyslexia, 9, 127–133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stage, S.A., Abbott, R.D., Jenkins, J.R., & Berninger, V.W. (2003). Predicting response to early reading intervention from verbal IQ, reading-related language abilities, attention ratings, and verbal IQ-word reading discrepancy: Failure to validate discrepancy method. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 24–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strick, P.L., Dum, R.P., & Fietz, J.A. (2009). Cerebellum and nonmotor function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 32, 413–434.Google Scholar
Stuebing, K.K., Fletcher, J.M., LeDoux, J.M., Lyon, G.R., Shaywitz, S.E., & Shaywitz, B.A. (2002).Validity of IQ-discrepancy classifications of reading disabilities: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 469–518.Google Scholar
Torgesen, J., Wagner, R., & Rashotte, C. (1998). Test of word reading efficiency. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
Torgesen, J., Wagner, R., Rashotte, C., Rose, E., Lindamood, P., et al. , (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction, Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vellutino, F.R. (1987). Dyslexia. Scientific American, March 1, 34–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vellutino, F.R., Fletcher, J.M., Snowling, M.J., & Scanlon, D.M. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychiatry & Psychology & Allied Disciplines, 45, 2–40.Google Scholar
Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., Small, S., & Fanuele, D.P. (2006). Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without reading disabilities: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first-grade interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 157–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagner, R.K., Torgesen, J.K., & Rashotte, C.A. (1999). Comprehensive test of phonological processing. Austin, TX. Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
Willcutt, E.G., Pennington, B.P., Olson, R.K., Chhabildas, N., & Huslander, J. (2005). neuropsychological analyses of comorbidity between reading disability and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: In search of the common deficit. Developmental Neuropsychology, 27, 35–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wimmer, H., Mayringer, H., & Raberger, T. (1999). Reading and dual-task balancing: Evidence against the automatization deficit explanation of developmental dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 473–478.Google Scholar
Woodcock, R.W., McGrew, K.S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III tests of achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar