As you may remember, I have two (three, in actuality, but the third's for MUN and I've motioned for a--wait for it--extension) papers due this week, and I've been proofreading my final paper for my nightmare of a psycholinguistics class. I am so proud of myself for making a fairly reasonable amount of sense in this discussion of material I do not understand in the slightest:
Developmental dyslexia is commonly characterized by difficulty reading and writing and is found in 5-10% of school-aged children internationally (CITATION). Given its prevalence, many efforts have been made to determine the etiology of dyslexia, with a consensus still to be reached (GIVE CITATIONS HERE). Arguments have been made that dyslexia arises primarily as the result of a dysfunction of the visual or auditory processing mechanisms, while others have instead supported models of phonological deficits.
The phonological-deficit hypothesis states that children with dyslexia have poor phonological representations, which affects processes at the phoneme level. An alternative hypothesis, the naming-deficit hypothesis, states that the abnormally slow rapid automatized naming (RAN) found in children with dyslexia indicates a deficit in the visual processing of familiar linguistic and non-linguistic stimuli presented in quick succession. However, still others believe that both these potential phonological and visual processing deficits are the result of either lower-level auditory deficits, visual deficits involved in the perception of motion, or a multimodal combination of these two, indicating overall deficits in processing dynamic stimuli.
The reasoning behind this last model is based on the importance of extracting quality phonemic representations from auditory input during the development of speech perception and production, along with reading acquisition. Analogous damage to the visual pathway could also result in later difficulty performing tasks such as the distinguishing of letter patterns, especially in reading. Reasoning behind RAN deficits has generated rather less of a consensus, with both low-level auditory and visual processing deficits suggested as causes. Here, the relationship between the auditory-temporal-phonological and the visual-temporal-orthographic processes has also divided opinions, with some both claiming and denying associations exist between the two. Taken individually, previous studies have indicated a relationship between visual processing and orthographic ability independent of phonological processing, though results in this area have yielded conflicting results.
et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam.
(But I'm just a little bit relieved.)
No comments:
Post a Comment