Literature DB >> 7718496

Contrast sensitivity in dyslexia.

K Gross-Glenn1, B C Skottun, W Glenn, A Kushch, R Lingua, M Dunbar, B Jallad, H A Lubs, B Levin, M Rabin.   

Abstract

Contrast sensitivity was determined for dyslexic and normal readers. When testing with temporally ramped (i.e. stimuli with gradual temporal onsets and offsets) gratings of 0.6, 4.0, and 12.0 cycles/deg, we found no difference in contrast sensitivity between dyslexic readers and controls. Using 12.0 cycles/deg gratings with transient (i.e. abrupt) onsets and offsets, we found that dyslexic individuals had, compared to controls, markedly inferior contrast sensitivity at the shortest stimulus durations (i.e. 17, 34, and 102 ms). This deficit may reflect more sluggish temporal summation. There was no difference in sensitivity to 0.6 cycles/deg gratings with transient onsets and offsets. Under these conditions, the two groups showed a consistent and equal increase in sensitivity relative to the ramped baseline condition at 0.6 cycles/deg at the longer stimulus durations. This demonstrates that dyslexic readers have no deficit in their ability to detect stimulus transients, a finding which appears to be inconsistent with a transient system deficit. That detection of the low-frequency stimuli was mediated by the transient system is further indicated by the fact that these stimuli were more susceptible to forward masking than were the high-frequency stimuli. The effects of masking of both high and low spatial-frequency stimuli were about equal for dyslexic readers and controls. This is not in agreement with the transient system deficit theory, according to which one would expect there to be less masking of high spatial-frequency stimuli in the case of dyslexic readers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7718496     DOI: 10.1017/s0952523800007380

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vis Neurosci        ISSN: 0952-5238            Impact factor:   3.241


  8 in total

1.  Assessing the role of different spatial frequencies in word perception by good and poor readers.

Authors:  Geoffrey R Patching; Timothy R Jordan
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2005-09

Review 2.  Reverse hierarchies and sensory learning.

Authors:  Merav Ahissar; Mor Nahum; Israel Nelken; Shaul Hochstein
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2009-02-12       Impact factor: 6.237

3.  Brain activity in visual cortex predicts individual differences in reading performance.

Authors:  J B Demb; G M Boynton; D J Heeger
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1997-11-25       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Speed discrimination predicts word but not pseudo-word reading rate in adults and children.

Authors:  Keith L Main; Franco Pestilli; Aviv Mezer; Jason Yeatman; Ryan Martin; Stephanie Phipps; Brian Wandell
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2014-09-29       Impact factor: 2.381

5.  A new gene (DYX3) for dyslexia is located on chromosome 2.

Authors:  T Fagerheim; P Raeymaekers; F E Tønnessen; M Pedersen; L Tranebjaerg; H A Lubs
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 6.318

6.  On the use of cues to assess attention in dyslexia.

Authors:  Bernt C Skottun
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2014-12-05       Impact factor: 3.169

Review 7.  Dyslexia: the Role of Vision and Visual Attention.

Authors:  John Stein
Journal:  Curr Dev Disord Rep       Date:  2014

8.  Psychophysical Evidence for Impaired Magno, Parvo, and Konio-cellular Pathways in Dyslexic Children.

Authors:  Khazar Ahmadi; Hamid Reza Pouretemad; Jahangir Esfandiari; Ahmad Yoonessi; Ali Yoonessi
Journal:  J Ophthalmic Vis Res       Date:  2015 Oct-Dec
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.