| Literature DB >> 22693600 |
Daniela Gebauer1, Andreas Fink, Reinhard Kargl, Gernot Reishofer, Karl Koschutnig, Christian Purgstaller, Franz Fazekas, Christian Enzinger.
Abstract
Previous fMRI studies in English-speaking samples suggested that specific interventions may alter brain function in language-relevant networks in children with reading and spelling difficulties, but this research strongly focused on reading impaired individuals. Only few studies so far investigated characteristics of brain activation associated with poor spelling ability and whether a specific spelling intervention may also be associated with distinct changes in brain activity patterns. We here investigated such effects of a morpheme-based spelling intervention on brain function in 20 children with comparatively poor spelling and reading abilities using repeated fMRI. Relative to 10 matched controls, children with comparatively poor spelling and reading abilities showed increased activation in frontal medial and right hemispheric regions and decreased activation in left occipito-temporal regions prior to the intervention, during processing of a lexical decision task. After five weeks of intervention, spelling and reading comprehension significantly improved in the training group, along with increased activation in the left temporal, parahippocampal and hippocampal regions. Conversely, the waiting group showed increases in right posterior regions. Our findings could indicate an increased left temporal activation associated with the recollection of the new learnt morpheme-based strategy related to successful training.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22693600 PMCID: PMC3364962 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038201
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Descriptive Statistics of Behavioral Measures (sex, age, non-verbal intelligence, reading- and spelling skills).
| TG | WG | CG | p | |
|
| ||||
| Sex | 10 (7 males) | 10 (5 males) | 10 (3 males) | |
| Age (years) | 11.5 (+/−0.7) | 11.6 (+/−1.7) | 12.3 (+/−2.1) | .49 |
| Intelligence – Raven raw scores | 36.7 (+/−7.7) | 36.5 (+/−9.16) | 43.4 (+/−5.4) | .09 |
|
| ||||
| Reading Skills – | 91.4 (+/−14.3) | 97.7 (+/−10.4) | 115.3 (+/−15.1) |
|
| Reading Comprehension | 48.3 (+/−8.8) | 50.9 (+/−5.9) | 62.3 (+/−7.9) |
|
| Spelling Skills - | 21.0 (+/−11.4) | 23.2 (+/−14.0) | 75.7 (+/−14.7) |
|
|
| ||||
| Reading Skills - | 102.6 (+/−13.9) | 100.0 (+/−9.1) | - | .53 |
| Reading Comprehension | 52.6 (+/−8.7) | 50.5 (+/−5.4) | - | .62 |
| Spelling Skills - | 42.3 (+/−23.0) | 23.9 (+/−13.3) | - |
|
Means and Standard Deviations (in brackets).
Pre-Intervention: Reading Skills: SLS Reading Quotient: Average Scores range from 85–115 (F (2,27) = 8.52; p<.001; η = .39); Reading Comprehension: ELFE T-scores: (F (2,27) = 9.57; p<.001; η = .42); Spelling Skills: HSP Percent Rank: (F (2,27) = 53.26; p<.001; η = .80).
Post-Intervention: Reading Skills: SLS Reading Quotient (F (1,18) = 0.25; p = .62; η = .01); Reading Comprehension: ELFE T-scores (F (1,18) = 0.42; p = .53; η = .02); Spelling Skills: HSP Percent Range (F (1,18) = 4.83; p<.05; η = .21).
Three out of the 20 comparatively poor spellers and readers showed below average reading scores (Reading Quotient: 83,75, 73).
Figure 1fMRI Paradigm.
Correctly spelled words, misspelled words, pseudowords and a fixation cross were presented in a randomized order for three seconds. In each lexical decision condition, children were instructed to respond by either pressing the “correct” button with the index finger or the “misspelled/pseudoword” button with the middle finger on the response console. Responses were given with the right hand and recorded and logged for further analyses. The children did not receive feedback to their responses.
Figure 2Baseline Comparison of the TG and WG during misspelled words.
(Z>2.0; P corrected; P = 0.05). R = right.
Figure 3Baseline Comparison of Poor Spellers (Readers) vs. Controls.
Pre-Intervention: 1: Activation during the condition misspelled words (relative to rest), 2: Activation during the condition pseudowords (relative to rest). Figures on the left represent contrasts between controls and the TG, and figures on the right contrasts between controls and the WG (Z>2.0; P corrected; P = 0.05). R = right. A more detailed representation of these contrasts is presented in Figure S2 and Figure S3.
Figure 4Behavioral Effects of the Training.
Spelling (percentile rankings of the HSP) and reading comprehension (ELFE T-scores). For descriptive reasons, the pre-test scores of the CG group are presented.
Performance during fMRI (correctly solved tasks as percentage and reaction time in seconds (RT).
| Performance during fMRI | ||||
| Accuracy | TG | WG | CG | |
| Pre-Intervention | 72.4 (+/−8.4) | 70.7 (+/−10.0) | 89.7 (+/−5.9) |
|
| Post-Intervention | 77.9 (+/−8.9) | 73.5 (+/−12.6) | 91.1 (+/−4.1) |
|
|
| ||||
| Pre-Intervention | 1.4 (+/−0.2) | 1.3 (+/−0.2) | 1.3 (+/−0.2) | .282 |
| Post-Intervention | 1.6 (+/−0.3) | 1.7 (+/−0.2) | 1.3 (+/−0.3) |
|
Means and Standard Deviations (in brackets).
Figure 5Changes of Activation in Poor Spellers.
1: Increases of activation after the intervention for the TG (left), compared to increases of activation without intervention for the WG (right), during the condition pseudowords. 2: Interaction Effect: Increased activation for the TG (compared to the WG) and for the WG (compared to the TG) during the condition misspelled words. (Z>2.0; P corrected; P = 0.05). R = right.
Correlation: Increase of activation×less behavioral improvement in the TG.
| CORRELATION: Increase of activation×less behavioral improvement in the TG | |||||
| k | Z | x | y | z | |
|
| |||||
| R middle temporal gyrus | 6805 | 3.4 | 58 | −54 | −10 |
| R lateral occipital cortex | 2467 | 3.27 | 32 | −72 | 42 |
|
| |||||
| R lateral occipital cortex | 1808 | 3.08 | 30 | −76 | 44 |
| L cerebellum | 1318 | 2.98 | −40 | −64 | −28 |
|
| |||||
| L precentral gyrus | 2782 | 3.31 | −50 | −10 | 40 |
| R lingual gyrus | 1665 | 2.83 | 14 | −84 | −10 |
| R cerebellum | 1381 | 3.03 | 22 | −68 | −22 |
Coordinates (in MNI standard space) and Activation Significance (Z statistics) of Local Maxima of Clusters, Z>2.0, P corrected P = 0.05.