Reading in deep dyslexia is not ideographic

doi:10.1016/0028-3932(80)90067-6

Neuropsychologia

Volume 18, Issue 2, 1980, Pages 219-223

https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(80)90067-6 Get rights and content

Abstract

Reading that is not phonologically mediated is often assumed to be “wholistic” or “ideographic” in nature. This study demonstrates that patients who are unable to read by use of spelling-sound correspondence rules (“deep” or “phonemic” dyslexics) have the capacity to read words presented in unusual configurations (vertical and mixed-case presentation). This evidence suggests that these patients are using a non-phonological reading mechanism that is based on letter information rather on overall configuration.

Résumé

On assume généralement que la lecture sans médiation phonologique est de nature “holistique” ou “idéographique”. Cette étude démontre que les sujets qui sont incapables de lire en utilisant les régles de correspondance sons-graphèmes (“dyslexie profonde” ou “phonémique”) sont capables de lire les mots présentés dans des configurations inhabituelles (présentation verticale ou avec des caractères de type différent). Ces faits suggèrent que ces malades utilisent un mécanisme de lecture non phonologique fondé sur les informations obtenues d'aprés la lettre elle-même plutôt que d'après les configurations générales.

Zusammenfassung

Wenn das Lesen nicht phonologisch vermittelt wird, fasst man es oft als “ganzheitlich” oder “ideographisch” auf. In dieser Untersuchung wird gezeigt, daβ Patienten, die nicht mithilfe von Buchstaben - Klang - Korrespondenzregeln lesen können (“Tiefen” - oder phonematische Dyslexie) in der Lage sind, Wörter in ungewöhnlichen Konfigurationen (vertikal oder mit gemischter Schreibweise) zu lesen. Das legt die Annahme nahe, daβ diese Patienten von einem nicht-phonologischen Mechanismus des Lesens Gebrauch machen der eher auf Buchstaben-Information als auf ganzheitlicher Konfiguration beruht.

References (25)

S. Sasanuma
Kana and Kanji processing in Japanese aphasics
Brain & Language
(1975)
H. Gardner et al.
Bee but not be: Oral reading of single words in aphasia and dyslexia
Neuropsychologia
(1975)
J.C. Marshall et al.
Syntactic and semantic errors in paralexia
Neuropsychologia
(1966)
J.T.E. Richardson
The effect of word imageability in acquired dyslexia
Neuropsychologia
(1975)
J. McClelland
Letter and configuration information in word identification
J. verb. Learn. verb. Behav.
(1977)
J. Levy et al.
Perceptual, semantic and phonetic aspects of elementary language processes in split-brain patients
Brain
(1977)
D.A. Allport
On knowing the meaning of words we are unable to report: the effects of visual masking
F. Smith
Understanding Reading: a Psycholinguistic Analysis of Reading and Learning to Read
(1971)
J. Brown
Aphasia, Apraxia and Agnosia
(1972)
H. Hécaen et al.
Neurolinguistic research on reading disorders resulting from left hemisphere lesions: Aphasic and “pure” alexias

A.R. Luria

Traumatic Aphasia

(1970)

J.C. Marshall et al.

Patterns of paralexia: a psycholinguistic approach

J. Psycholing. Res.

(1973)

Cited by (50)

The anatomical foundations of acquired reading disorders: A neuropsychological verification of the dual-route model of reading
2014, Brain and Language
Citation Excerpt :
For instance, Luzzatti, Mondini, and Semenza (2001) described the reading performance of an agrammatic deep dyslexic patient whose CT scan revealed a large left perisylvian frontoinsular lesion extending to the inferior parietal and the anterosuperior temporal areas. Left hemisphere perisylvian lesions causing extensive damage to the language areas and to the underlying white matter have also been reported in other studies (Beaton, Guest, & Rajul, 1997; Friedman & Perlman, 1982; Glosser & Friedman, 1990; Katz & Lanzoni, 1992; Laine, Niemi, & Niemipaivi, 1990; Nickels, 1992; Nolan & Caramazza, 1982; Price et al., 1998; Roeltgen, 1987; Ruiz, Ansaldo, & Lecours, 1994; Saffran, 1980; Schweiger et al., 1989; Shallice & Coughlan, 1980; Silverberg, Vigliocco, Insalaco, & Garrett, 1998). This neuroanatomical evidence is consistent with Coltheart’s account of deep dyslexia based on extensive destruction of the left-hemisphere language areas and the consequent emergence of residual right-hemisphere linguistic abilities (Coltheart, 1980a; see also Saffran, Bogyo, Schwartz, & Marin, 1980).
In this study we investigated the neural correlates of acquired reading disorders through an anatomo-correlative procedure of the lesions of 59 focal brain damaged patients suffering from acquired surface, phonological, deep, undifferentiated dyslexia and pure alexia. Two reading tasks, one of words and nonwords and one of words with unpredictable stress position, were used for this study. We found that surface dyslexia was predominantly associated with left temporal lesions, while in phonological dyslexia the lesions overlapped in the left insula and the left inferior frontal gyrus (pars opercularis) and that pure alexia was associated with lesions in the left fusiform gyrus. A number of areas and white matter tracts, which seemed to involve processing along both the lexical and the sublexical routes, were identified for undifferentiated dyslexia. Two cases of deep dyslexia with relatively dissimilar anatomical correlates were studied, one compatible with Coltheart, 1980a, Coltheart, 1980b whereas the other could be interpreted in the context of Morton and Patterson’s (1980), multiply-damaged left-hemisphere hypothesis. In brief, the results of this study are only partially consistent with the current state of the art, and propose new and stimulating challenges; indeed, based on these results we suggest that different types of acquired dyslexia may ensue after different cortical damage, but white matter disconnection may play a crucial role in some cases.
Do deep dyslexia, dysphasia and dysgraphia share a common phonological impairment?
2007, Neuropsychologia
This study directly compared four patients who, to varying degrees, showed the characteristics of deep dyslexia, dysphasia and/or dysgraphia—i.e., they made semantic errors in oral reading, repetition and/or spelling to dictation. The “primary systems” hypothesis proposes that these different conditions result from severe impairment to a common phonological system, rather than damage to task-specific mechanisms (i.e. grapheme-phoneme conversion). By this view, deep dyslexic/dysphasic patients should show overlapping deficits but previous studies have not directly compared them. All four patients in the current study showed poor phonological production across different tasks, including repetition, reading aloud and spoken picture naming, in line with the primary systems hypothesis. They also showed severe deficits in tasks that required the manipulation of phonology, such as phoneme addition and deletion. Some of the characteristics of the deep syndromes – namely lexicality and imageability effects – were typically observed in all of the tasks, regardless of whether semantic errors occurred or not, suggesting that the patients’ phonological deficits impacted on repetition, reading aloud and spelling to dictation in similar ways. Differences between the syndromes were accounted for by variation in other primary systems—particularly auditory processing. Deep dysphasic symptoms occurred when the impact of phonological input on spoken output was disrupted or reduced, either as a result of auditory/phonological impairment, or for patients with good phonological input analysis, when repetition was delayed. ‘Deep’ disorders of reading aloud, repetition and spelling can therefore be explained in terms of damage to interacting primary systems such as phonology, semantics and vision, with phonology playing a critical role.
Semantic representation and ease of predication
2000, Brain and Language
Jones' (1985) Ease of Predication hypothesis, which states that underlying differences in the semantic representation of concrete and abstract words can be explained in terms of disproportionate numbers of semantic predicates, is explored in two experiments. The results suggest that (1) the advantage shown by concrete words in terms of greater number of predicates is only apparent for words of low frequency, and (2) Jones' ease of predication variable does not accurately reflect predicate distributions, or differences in imageability. Rather, it appears to represent differences in concreteness. As such, the validity of this concept as the basis of theories of semantic representation is questioned. Models based on the assumption of a “richer” semantic representation for concrete words are therefore not supported.
Independence of access to meaning and phonology: Arguments for direct non-semantic pathways for the naming of written words and pictures
2021, Psychology Library Editions: Neuropsychology
Independence of access to meaning and phonology: Arguments for direct nonsemantic pathways for the naming of written words and pictures
2018, Perspectives on Cognitive Neuropsychology
Wholistic reading of alphabetic print: Evidence from the FDM and the FBI
2017, Orthographies and Reading: Perspectives from Cognitive Psychology, Neuropsychology, and Linguistics

View all citing articles on Scopus

^☆: This research was supported by grant NS 13992 from the National Institute of Health.

View full text

NoteReading in deep dyslexia is not ideographic☆

Abstract

Résumé

Zusammenfassung

Brain & Language

Neuropsychologia

Neuropsychologia

Neuropsychologia

J. verb. Learn. verb. Behav.

Perceptual, semantic and phonetic aspects of elementary language processes in split-brain patients

Brain

On knowing the meaning of words we are unable to report: the effects of visual masking

Understanding Reading: a Psycholinguistic Analysis of Reading and Learning to Read

Aphasia, Apraxia and Agnosia

Neurolinguistic research on reading disorders resulting from left hemisphere lesions: Aphasic and “pure” alexias

Traumatic Aphasia

Patterns of paralexia: a psycholinguistic approach

J. Psycholing. Res.

Note
Reading in deep dyslexia is not ideographic☆