Visual search performance in dyslexia.

According to the magnocellular theory of dyslexia, otherwise intelligent children may fail to learn to read because of abnormalities in the magnocellular layers of the lateral geniculate nucleus (mLGN). If this were the case, one would predict that dyslexic subjects who show a deficit on low-level psychophysical tasks which tax the magnocellular system would also have deficits on higher-level visual tasks which do not rely on the properties of mLGN cells but depend upon the functioning of areas whose main inputs originate in the mLGN. In other words, magnocellular deficits should be traceable at later stages of visual processing. One area where such later processing is thought to occur is the posterior parietal cortex, damage to which impairs function on some classes of visual search. To test this hypothesis, we tested two groups of dyslexic subjects and a group of non-dyslexic controls on a range of visual search tasks. One group of dyslexic subjects had elevated motion coherence thresholds, a sign of deficits at the early levels (e.g. mLGN) of visual processing, and the other group had normal motion coherence thresholds. If the magnocellular deficits extended to the parietal cortex, it follows that the subjects with elevated motion coherence thresholds should have deficit in visual search, whereas those with normal motion coherence thresholds should not. The dyslexics with a motion coherence deficit were also impaired on serial visual search tasks but not on a parallel search. The dyslexics with normal motion coherence performance were unimpaired on visual search. The deficit was expressed as an elevation in reaction times, but there was no difference between the groups either in error rates or in the way the tasks were ranked according to difficulty. The results suggest that those dyslexics who have visual problems related to magnocellular functions also have visual-attentional problems related to the functions of areas such as the parietal cortex, which are dominated by inputs originating in the magnocellular LGN.

[1]  P. Tallal,et al.  Neurobiological Basis of Speech: A Case for the Preeminence of Temporal Processing , 1993, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[2]  Elizabeth K. Warrington,et al.  Attentional dyslexia: A single case study , 1993, Neuropsychologia.

[3]  Alexander Pollatsek,et al.  Selective attentional dyslexia , 1989 .

[4]  M. Livingstone,et al.  Physiological and anatomical evidence for a magnocellular defect in developmental dyslexia. , 1991, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[5]  M. Jane Riddoch,et al.  Neglect and the peripheral dyslexias , 1990 .

[6]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Visual Search for Feature and Conjunction Targets with an Attention Deficit , 1993, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[7]  J. Lettvin,et al.  Peripheral vision in persons with dyslexia. , 1987, The New England journal of medicine.

[8]  M. Rutter,et al.  Over- and under-achievement in reading: distribution in the general population. , 1974, The British journal of educational psychology.

[9]  N. Drasdo,et al.  An investigation of some sensory and refractive visual factors in dyslexia , 1994, Vision Research.

[10]  A. Treisman.  The binding problem , 1996, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[11]  W. Lovegrove,et al.  Spatial-frequency-dependent visible persistence and specific reading disability , 1985, Brain and Cognition.

[12]  R. Woods,et al.  Abnormal processing of visual motion in dyslexia revealed by functional brain imaging , 1996, Nature.

[13]  S. Jay Samuels,et al.  Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading , 1974 .

[14]  S A Hillyard,et al.  Spatial gradients of visual attention: behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. , 1988, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[15]  D. Hubel,et al.  Spatial and chromatic interactions in the lateral geniculate body of the rhesus monkey. , 1966, Journal of neurophysiology.

[16]  N. B. Bologna,et al.  Perceptual grouping in good and poor readers , 1985, Perception & psychophysics.

[17]  A. Treisman,et al.  A feature-integration theory of attention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[18]  Ingvar Lundberg,et al.  Reading and spelling skills in the first school years predicted from phonemic awareness skills in kindergarten , 1980 .

[19]  G. Mangun,et al.  Developmental dyslexia: Passive visual stimulation provides no evidence for a magnocellular processing defect , 1996, Neuropsychologia.

[20]  M. Williams,et al.  Visual masking as a measure of temporal processing in normal and disabled readers , 1989 .

[21]  J. Stein,et al.  Contrast sensitivity and coherent motion detection measured at photopic luminance levels in dyslexics and controls , 1995, Vision Research.

[22]  John H. R. Maunsell,et al.  How parallel are the primate visual pathways? , 1993, Annual review of neuroscience.

[23]  F. Martin,et al.  Flicker Contrast Sensitivity in Normal and Specifically Disabled Readers , 1987, Perception.

[24]  J. Stein,et al.  To see but not to read; the magnocellular theory of dyslexia , 1997, Trends in Neurosciences.

[25]  David R. Badcock,et al.  The Effects of Contrast, Stimulus Duration, and Spatial Frequency on Visible Persistence in Normal and Specifically Disabled Readers. , 1981 .

[26]  J. Stein.  Developmental dyslexia, neural timing and hemispheric lateralisation. , 1994, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[27]  M. Williams,et al.  Allocation of visual attention in good and poor readers , 1987, Perception & psychophysics.

[28]  B. Breitmeyer,et al.  Metacontrast reveals asymmetries at red–green isoluminance , 1991 .

[29]  Mary M. Conte,et al.  Visual evoked potentials in dyslexics and normals: Failure to find a difference in transient or steady-state responses , 1993, Visual Neuroscience.

[30]  Frank R. Vellutino,et al.  Dyslexia: Theory and Research , 1979 .

[31]  B. Skottun,et al.  Contrast sensitivity in dyslexia , 1995, Visual Neuroscience.

[32]  W. Ridder,et al.  The presence of a magnocellular defect depends on the type of dyslexia , 1996, Vision Research.

[33]  Leslie G. Ungerleider.  Two cortical visual systems , 1982 .

[34]  M. Posner,et al.  Orienting of Attention* , 1980, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[35]  A biological marker for dyslexia , 1996, Nature.

[36]  J. B. Levitt,et al.  Independence and merger of thalamocortical channels within macaque monkey primary visual cortex: Anatomy of interlaminar projections , 1994, Visual Neuroscience.

[37]  R T Knight,et al.  Cortical substrates supporting visual search in humans. , 1991, Cerebral cortex.

[38]  A. Galaburda,et al.  Evidence for aberrant auditory anatomy in developmental dyslexia. , 1994, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[39]  S. Valdois,et al.  Peripheral developmental dyslexia: a visual attentional account? , 1995 .

[40]  M. Mozer,et al.  Perceptual and Conceptual Mechanisms in Neglect Dyslexia: Two Contrasting Case Studies , 1990 .

[41]  J. Stein,et al.  Differences in eye movements and reading problems in dyslexic and normal children , 1994, Vision Research.

[42]  J. Hogben,et al.  Effects of a red background on magnocellular functioning in average and specifically disabled readers , 1996, Vision Research.

[43]  P. Bryant,et al.  Categorizing sounds and learning to read—a causal connection , 1983, Nature.

[44]  Tim Shallice,et al.  The possible role of selective attention in acquired dyslexia , 1977, Neuropsychologia.

[45]  W. Lovegrove,et al.  Reading disability: Spatial frequency specific deficits in visual information store , 1980, Neuropsychologia.

[46]  David Badcock,et al.  Contrast sensitivity functions and specific reading disability , 1982, Neuropsychologia.