{"title":"Perceptual anchoring: Children with dyslexia benefit less than controls from contextual repetitions in speech processing","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.clinph.2024.07.016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>Individuals with dyslexia perceive and utilize statistical features in the auditory input deficiently. The present study investigates whether affected children also benefit less from repeating context tones as perceptual anchors for subsequent speech processing.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>In an event-related potential study, eleven-year-old children with dyslexia (<em>n</em> = 21) and without dyslexia (<em>n</em> = 20) heard syllable pairs, with the first syllable either receiving a constant pitch (anchor) or variable pitch (no-anchor), while second syllables were identical across conditions.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Children with and without dyslexia showed smaller auditory P2 responses to constant-pitch versus variable-pitch first syllables, while only control children additionally showed smaller N1 and faster P1 responses. This suggests less automatic processing of anchor repetitions in dyslexia. For the second syllables, both groups showed faster P2 responses following anchor than no-anchor first syllables, but only controls additionally showed smaller P2 responses.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Children with and without dyslexia show differences in anchor effects. While both groups seem to allocate less attention to speech stimuli after contextual repetitions, children with dyslexia display less facilitation in speech processing from acoustic anchors.</p></div><div><h3>Significance</h3><p>Altered anchoring in the linguistic domain may contribute to the difficulties of individuals with dyslexia in establishing long-term representations of speech.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":10671,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neurophysiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1388245724002207/pdfft?md5=c337cdb86b7eb757abe6999823bc18f1&pid=1-s2.0-S1388245724002207-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Neurophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1388245724002207","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives
Individuals with dyslexia perceive and utilize statistical features in the auditory input deficiently. The present study investigates whether affected children also benefit less from repeating context tones as perceptual anchors for subsequent speech processing.
Methods
In an event-related potential study, eleven-year-old children with dyslexia (n = 21) and without dyslexia (n = 20) heard syllable pairs, with the first syllable either receiving a constant pitch (anchor) or variable pitch (no-anchor), while second syllables were identical across conditions.
Results
Children with and without dyslexia showed smaller auditory P2 responses to constant-pitch versus variable-pitch first syllables, while only control children additionally showed smaller N1 and faster P1 responses. This suggests less automatic processing of anchor repetitions in dyslexia. For the second syllables, both groups showed faster P2 responses following anchor than no-anchor first syllables, but only controls additionally showed smaller P2 responses.
Conclusions
Children with and without dyslexia show differences in anchor effects. While both groups seem to allocate less attention to speech stimuli after contextual repetitions, children with dyslexia display less facilitation in speech processing from acoustic anchors.
Significance
Altered anchoring in the linguistic domain may contribute to the difficulties of individuals with dyslexia in establishing long-term representations of speech.
期刊介绍:
As of January 1999, The journal Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, and its two sections Electromyography and Motor Control and Evoked Potentials have amalgamated to become this journal - Clinical Neurophysiology.
Clinical Neurophysiology is the official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology, the Brazilian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, the Czech Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, the Italian Clinical Neurophysiology Society and the International Society of Intraoperative Neurophysiology.The journal is dedicated to fostering research and disseminating information on all aspects of both normal and abnormal functioning of the nervous system. The key aim of the publication is to disseminate scholarly reports on the pathophysiology underlying diseases of the central and peripheral nervous system of human patients. Clinical trials that use neurophysiological measures to document change are encouraged, as are manuscripts reporting data on integrated neuroimaging of central nervous function including, but not limited to, functional MRI, MEG, EEG, PET and other neuroimaging modalities.