Writing induces a right hemisphere linguistic advantage in dysphonetic dyslexic children: implications for attention and capacity models of laterality

An experiment demonstrated a complete hemispheric processing reversal in 10 male, dysphonetic dyslexic children that occurred during a dichotic listening test of their verbal working memory. Requiring a written response to dichotic digits produced a right hemisphere/left ear superiority in the dysphonetic dyslexics whereas normal subjects and other dyslexics maintained a left hemisphere/right ear advantage. This reversal was unaffected by changes in task difficulty. A second experiment assessed the influence on producing the reversal of concurrent manual interference with left hemisphere verbal processing (responding orally vs. manually) and selective right hemisphere priming (Forward Writing vs. Backward Writing). The dysphonetic children reverted to a strong left hemisphere superiority when recalling the dichotic digits orally. Backward writing produced no ear advantage in either direction. The findings suggest that dysphonetic dyslexia may be related to (1) left hemisphere processing demands that exceed capacity, (2) easily activated right hemisphere processing strategies and (3) failure to coordinate linguistic processing interhemispherically. The results supported a novel hybrid conceptualization of dyslexia consisting of a synthesis of selective activation, and dual processor-limited capacity, theories.     

Dichotic listening performance in subtypes of developmental dyslexia and a left temporal lobe brain tumor contrast group.

This study examined dichotic listening performance in three subtypes of developmental dyslexia and in children with left temporal lobe brain tumors (clinical contrast group). Each child was administered a free-recall CV syllable dichotic paradigm (30 pairs). Analysis of variance and Tukey-HSD pairwise follow-up comparison indicated that the dichotic listening performance of the left temporal lobe brain tumor contrast group (strong LEA/right ear suppression) was significantly different from those of the visual-spatial/dyseidetic (strong REA/left ear depression) and mixed (moderate REA/bilateral ear suppression) dyslexic subtypes. The language disorder/dysphonetic dyslexic subtype demonstrated a REA with right ear depression. Closer inspection of the individual performances of the language disorder/dysphonetic dyslexic subtype revealed a bimodal distribution with 12 subjects demonstrating a strong LEA/right ear suppression and 8 subjects exhibiting a strong REA/left ear depression. These results lend support for the contention that the dyslexic population is heterogeneous in nature with each subgroup exhibiting (1) a distinct neuropsychological test profile and reading pattern and (2) a pattern of performance on the dichotic listening task which is consistent with what would be expected based upon the pattern of dysfunction exhibited on neuropsychological evaluation.     

Hemispheric lateralization of bilaterally presented homologous visual and auditory stimuli in normal adults, normal children, and children with central auditory dysfunction

Two experiments were conducted to examine the performance of normal adults, normal children, and children diagnosed with central auditory dysfunction presumed to involve the interhemispheric pathways on a dichotic digits test in common clinical use for the diagnosis of central auditory processing disorder (CAPD) and its corresponding visual analog. Results of the first experiment revealed a significant right ear advantage (REA) for the dichotic listening task and a left-visual-field advantage (LVFA) for the corresponding visual analog in normal adults and children. In the second experiment, results revealed a significantly larger REA in the children with CAPD as compared to the normal children. Results also revealed a reversed cerebral asymmetry (RVFA) for the children with CAPD on the visual task. Significant cross-modal correlations suggest that the two tasks may reflect, at least in part, similar interhemispheric processing mechanisms in children. Findings are discussed in relation to differential diagnosis and modality-specificity of CAPD.     

Verbal and affective laterality effects in P-dyslexic, L-dyslexic and normal children.

Lateralization of verbal and affective processes was investigated in P-dyslexic, L-dyslexic and normal children with the aid of a dichotic listening task. The children were asked to detect either the presence of a specific target word or of words spoken in a specific emotional tone of voice. The number of correct responses and reaction time were recorded. For monitoring words, an overall right ear advantage was obtained. However, further tests showed no significant ear advantage for P-types, and a right ear advantage for L-types and controls. For emotions, an overall left ear advantage was obtained that was less robust than the word-effect. The results of the word task are in support of previous findings concerning differences between P- and L-dyslexics in verbal processing according to the balance model of dyslexia. However, dyslexic children do not differ from controls on processing of emotional prosody although certain task variables may have affected this result.     

Verbal and Affective Laterality Effects in P-Dyslexic,L-Dyslexic and Normal Children

Lateralization of verbal and affective processes was investigated in P-dyslexic, L-dyslexic and normal children with the aid of a dichotic listening task. The children were asked to detect either the presence of a specific target word or of words spoken in a specific emotional tone of voice. The number of correct responses and reaction time were recorded. For monitoring words, an overall right ear advantage was obtained. However, further tests showed no significant ear advantage for P-types, and a right ear advantage for L-types and controls. For emotions, an overall left ear advantage was obtained that was less robust than the word-effect. The results of the word task are in support of previous findings concerning differences between P- and L-dyslexics in verbal processing according to the balance model of dyslexia. However, dyslexic children do not differ from controls on processing of emotional prosody although certain task variables may have affected this result.     

Left ear dichotic listening performance on consonant-vowel combinations and digits in subtypes of reading-disabled children

Twenty reading comprehension-disabled (CD) and 20 reading comprehension and word recognition-disabled (CWRD), right-handed male children were matched with 20 normal-achieving age-matched controls and 20 normal-achieving reading level-matched controls and tested for left ear report on dichotic listening tasks using digits and consonant-vowel combinations (CVs). Left ear report for CVs and digits did not correlate for any of the groups. Both reading-disabled groups showed lower left ear report on digits. On CVs the CD group showed a high left ear report but only when there were no priming precursors, such as directions to attend right first and to process digits first. Priming effects interfered with the processing of both digits and CVs. Theoretically, the CWRD group seems to be characterized by a depressed right hemisphere, whereas the CD group may have a more labile right hemisphere, perhaps tending to overengagement for CV tasks but vulnerable to situational precursors in the form of priming effects. Implications extend to (1) subtyping practices in research with the learning-disabled, (2) inferences drawn from studies using different dichotic stimuli, and (3) the neuropsychology of reading disorders.     

Cross-modal correlation of auditory and visual language laterality tasks: a serendipitous finding

Two experiments were conducted to investigate whether auditory and visual language laterality tasks test the same brain processes for verbal functions. In the first experiment, 48 undergraduate students (24 males, 24 females) completed both an auditory monitoring task and a visual monitoring task, with the Waterloo Handedness Questionnaire administered between the two tasks. The visual task was an analogue of the dichotic listening task used. It was hypothesized that a significant cross-modal correlation would be found, indicating that the dichotic listening task and the visual analogue task do, in fact, test the same brain processes for verbal functions. Results revealed a right ear advantage in the auditory task, a left visual field advantage (LVFA) in the visual task, and a cross-modal correlation of asymmetries of -.09. The LVFA observed in the visual task was replicated in Experiment 2, thus establishing its legitimacy. Results are discussed in relation with the type of processing that might produce such an unexpected finding on the visual task.     

Effects of chlorpromazine on lateralization,cued reaction time,and dichotic listening

In a double-blind cross-over design sixteen subjects took 50 mg of chlorpromazine or placebo in tablet form 2 hours prior to completing a dichotic listening and simple reaction time task with and without warnings. In the simple reaction time task, blocks of 80 stimuli were presented to each ear with and without warning cue under drug and placebo conditions. On the dichotic listening task the expected right ear advantage for reporting digits was obtained. While the drug had no main effect on the number of errors, there were more trials on which an ear advantage was present than in the placebo condition. In the reaction time task there were main effects of drug, warning cue and foreperiod: warnings facilitated reaction; chlorpromazine retarded reaction; and reaction times were most facilitated by warning foreperiods in excess of 1200ms. Several findings were of interest: On uncued trials, with placebo, right ear responses were faster than those for stimuli presented to the left ear. Drug also interacted with foreperiod duration. These results were interpreted in the light of Tucker and Williamson’s (1984) review of the role of Pribram and McGuinness’s Arousal and Activation sytems in lateralized behavior.     

Effects of chlorpromazine on lateralization, cued reaction time, and dichotic listening

In a double-blind cross-over design sixteen subjects took 50 mg of chlorpromazine or placebo in tablet form 2 hours prior to completing a dichotic listening and simple reaction time task with and without warnings. In the simple reaction time task, blocks of 80 stimuli were presented to each ear with and without warning cue under drug and placebo conditions. On the dichotic listening task the expected right ear advantage for reporting digits was obtained. While the drug had no main effect on the number of errors, there were more trials on which an ear advantage was present than in the placebo condition. In the reaction time task there were main effects of drug, warning cue and foreperiod: warnings facilitated reaction; chlorpromazine retarded reaction; and reaction times were most facilitated by warning foreperiods in excess of 1200ms. Several findings were of interest: On uncued trials, with placebo, right ear responses were faster than those for stimuli presented to the left ear. Drug also interacted with foreperiod duration. These results were interpreted in the light of Tucker and Williamson’s (1984) review of the role of Pribram and McGuinness’s Arousal and Activation sytems in lateralized behavior.     

Dichotic listening in children: age-related changes in direction and magnitude of ear advantage

Children between the ages of 5 and 12 years were tested with dichotic listening tests utilizing single syllable words and random presentations of digits. They produced a higher prevalence of left ear dominance than expected, especially among right-handed children when tested with words. Whether more children demonstrate the LEA because of right hemisphere dominance for language or because there is less stability in ear advantage direction at younger ages cannot be fully resolved by this study. When ear advantages were measured by subtracting each child's lower score from the higher score without regard to right or left direction, an age-related trend toward lower measures of ear advantage was evident. This trend was greater for dichotic words than for dichotic digits. Structural factors that may be related to these results and possible influences of attention and verbal workload on the two kinds of dichotic stimuli are discussed.     

CROSS-LANGUAGE DIFFERENCES IN DICHOTIC LISTENING*

Greater right ear advantage in dichotic listening to English-spoken digits among English-speakers than among Japanese- and Hebrew-speakers (Hatta and Dimond 1981; Nachshon 1986) was attributed either to effects of linguistic properties of the respective native languages, or to the sequence of language acquisition. In order to evaluate the two alternative hypotheses, 112 English-Hebrew and 140 Hebrew-English bilinguals recalled a series of three-digit dichotic sets. Differential ear advantages were expected on the basis of the two hypotheses. Data analysis showed, however, that while recall was better for digits spoken in the native than in the non-native languages, no significant differences in right ear advantage between the two groups were found. Procedural effects might account for this result.     

汉语普通话声调加工的右耳优势及其机理：一项双耳分听的研究

采用双耳分听的任务探讨了汉语普通话声调加工的右耳优势问题,并引进反应手的因素,探讨了汉语声调加工的右耳优势的机制。结果表明,汉语母语被试对普通话声调的加工存在右耳、左脑优势,但这种优势是相对的,右脑也具备加工声调信息的能力,结果支持了直接通达模型。     

Cerebral specialization and verbal-motor integration in adults with and without Down syndrome

Persons with Down syndrome (DS) tend to exhibit an atypical left ear-right hemisphere advantage (LEA) for the perception of speech sounds. In the present study, a recent adaptation of the dichotic listening procedure was employed to examine interhemispheric integration during the performance of a lateralized verbal-motor task. Although adults with DS (n = 13) demonstrated a right ear-left hemisphere advantage in the dichotic-motor task similar to their peers with (n = 14) and without undifferentiated developmental disabilities (n = 14), they showed an LEA in a free recall dichotic listening task. Based on a comparison of the laterality indices obtained from both dichotic listening procedures, it appears that the manifestation of lateral ear advantages in persons DS may dependent on the response requirements of the task.     

Dichotic listening ear asymmetry: Patterns of longitudinal development

Dichotic listening research with children has continued to be prevalent although numerous authors have described both theoretical and methodological limitations with traditional dichotic listening free-recall paradigms. The present research adds to this growing skepticism by reanalyzing two major longitudinal studies of children's ear asymmetries. These two studies, based in different countries (United States, Holland), utilized highly similar paradigms (free-recall digits), subjects (males), and age levels (kindergarten and second and fifth grade). The questions of ear advantage development, patterns of ear advantages, and the relationship between dichotic listening performance and reading skills are addressed from the multiple statistical methodologies represented in the literature. From these analyses, support for all of the major hypotheses regarding the developmental patterns of dichotic listening performances could be obtained from the same data samples. The use of traditional free-recall dichotic listening paradigms are not recommended for use with children. The implications for future research are discussed.     

Consonant-vowel lateralization in dyslexic children: deficit or compensatory development?

Two studies with the same subjects examined dyslexic children's puzzling superiority in forced left ear (LE) dichotic recall with consonant-vowel (CV) combinations. Thirty dysphonemic dyslexics were compared to 30 age-matched and 30 younger reading-matched normal readers. The children were tested in directed attention dichotic listening and in pseudoword decoding, word recognition, reading comprehension, spelling, arithmetic, and general intelligence (IQ). Failure to replicate the LE effect in the first experiment or in free-recall trials suggests its probable origin in aberrant attention/arousal rather than in deviant verbal lateralization. Experiment two replicated the superior LE effect in comparison to both control groups but also found the dyslexics poorer at the right ear (RE). Laterality coefficients confirmed that the dyslexics were more weakly lateralized. Corrections for stimulus dominance revealed that the uncorrected scores (1) concealed the extreme difficulty of the task and (2) obscured floor effects in the LE performance of the normals. Correlations suggest cautiously that CV lateralization may be associated inversely with reading comprehension and word decoding in the dyslexics and normal readers. The results provide mild support for the hypothesis that weak attentional lateralization for CVs in dyslexia may result from the precocious development of posterior right hemisphere attentional systems in compensation for presumed posterior left hemisphere lesions. No support was found for the competing hypothesis that such weak lateralization may be a component of the dyslexics' primary, correlated, or secondary deficit symptomatology.     

Visual field differences in the processing of numerical stimuli

Twenty-four right-handed subjects received random presentations of the numbers 1-6 in the form of words, digits, and dot patterns, to the left and right visual fields. Accuracy and reaction time were recorded for an odd-even judgment requiring a manual response. A significant stimulus type of visual field interaction was obtained, with words showing a left-hemisphere advantage and digits and dot patterns showing a right-hemisphere advantage. This pattern supports Coltheart's (1980, Deep dyslexia: A right hemisphere hypothesis, In M. Coltheart, K. Patterson, & J.C. Marshall (Eds.), Deep dyslexia, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul) right hemisphere reading hypothesis, which suggests that the left hemisphere's general advantage in processing linguistic material may be specific to stimuli which involve phonological processing. When phonological processing is not possible (e.g., for arabic digits and other ideographic orthographies), the right hemisphere may have an advantage because of its superior visuospatial processing capabilities.     

The Role of Dichotic Listening Performance and Tasks of Executive Functions in Reading Impairment: A Discriminant Function Analysis

This study focused on the role of dichotic listening performance for the identification of reading impaired subtypes. Dichotic listening (DL), using verbal stimuli, has shown to be a valid measure of language lateralization. Usually, lateralization is estimated from the proportion of right ear over left ear accuracy during a free recall test procedure. However, it has been suggested that a more accurate estimate of laterality can be obtained by using a directed attention procedure. A sample of 43 reading disabled children of whom 18 showed signs of impaired language comprehension skills and 25 without language comprehension impairments, were compared to 20 age, and gender, matched controls on dichotic listening performance in both an unbiased free recall task and in a directed attention task using consonant-vowel syllables as dichotic stimuli. A laterality index was calculated for left and right ear stimuli reported during both the free recall condition and the attended ear-scores for the two directed attention conditions. Although both DL procedures yielded significant group differences, with a lower laterality score for the reading disabled compared to the controls, there was no main effect of DL-procedure or group × procedure interaction. Taken alone, DL performance could correctly classify 42% of the reading impaired samples, but together with other measures of executive functions, discriminant function analyses yielded 90.74% accuracy in classifying reading impaired children. The result indicates that DL together with tests of executive functions are valuable tools for assessment of reading impaired subjects.     

The nature of hemispheric specialization for prosody perception

Recent evidence suggests a relative right-hemispheric specialization for emotional prosody perception, whereas linguistic prosody perception is under bilateral control. It is still unknown, however, how the hemispheric specialization for prosody perception might arise. Two main hypotheses have been put forward. Cue-dependent hypotheses, on the one hand, propose that hemispheric specialization is driven by specialization for the non-prosody-specific processing of acoustic cues. The functional lateralization hypothesis, on the other hand, proposes that hemispheric specialization is dependent on the communicative function of prosody, with emotional and linguistic prosody processing being lateralized to the right and left hemispheres, respectively. In the present study, the functional lateralization hypothesis of prosody perception was systematically tested by instructing one group of participants to evaluate the emotional prosody, and another group the linguistic prosody dimension of bidimensional prosodic stimuli in a dichotic-listening paradigm, while event-related potentials were recorded. The results showed that the right-ear advantage was associated with decreased latencies for an early negativity in the contralateral hemisphere. No evidence was found for functional lateralization. These findings suggest that functional lateralization effects for prosody perception are small and support the structural model of dichotic listening.     

The role of dichotic listening performance and tasks of executive functions in reading impairment: a discriminant function analysis.

This study focused on the role of dichotic listening performance for the identification of reading impaired subtypes. Dichotic listening (DL), using verbal stimuli, has shown to be a valid measure of language lateralization. Usually, lateralization is estimated from the proportion of right ear over left ear accuracy during a free recall test procedure. However, it has been suggested that a more accurate estimate of laterality can be obtained by using a directed attention procedure. A sample of 43 reading disabled children of whom 18 showed signs of impaired language comprehension skills and 25 without language comprehension impairments, were compared to 20 age, and gender, matched controls on dichotic listening performance in both an unbiased free recall task and in a directed attention task using consonant-vowel syllables as dichotic stimuli. A laterality index was calculated for left and right ear stimuli reported during both the free recall condition and the attended ear-scores for the two directed attention conditions. Although both DL procedures yielded significant group differences, with a lower laterality score for the reading disabled compared to the controls, there was no main effect of DL-procedure or group x procedure interaction. Taken alone, DL performance could correctly classify 42% of the reading impaired samples, but together with other measures of executive functions, discriminant function analyses yielded 90.74% accuracy in classifying reading impaired children. The result indicates that DL together with tests of executive functions are valuable tools for assessment of reading impaired subjects.