Deep dyslexia in childhood?

Deep dyslexia is an acquired reading disorder in which semantic substitutions (e.g., city read as town) are made in reading single isolated words. In this paper, evidence for deep dyslexic-type errors is presented from the word-recognition responses of six children, aged 7 years and 0 month to 8 years and 9 months, with severe reading disorders. These semantic substitutions occur in the absence of phonological skills. Therefore, it appears that there exists a small subset of developmental dyslexics who at the beginning of acquisition of reading skills are able to engage in semantic processing, but who show severe impairment of phonological processing. The existence of these reading errors indicate that the use of a phonological code is not necessary to extract meaning from the printed word.     

Effects of simulated stuttering on listener recall

In an investigation of the effects of simulated stuttering on listener recall, a presentation was varied on two factors: degree of stuttering (mild or severe) and information value of stuttered words (low or high). A control presentation featuring non-stuttered speech also was prepared. Five groups of 16 subjects were randomly assigned to, and participated in, one of the five listening conditions. Then they completed a 20-item recall test. A one-way analysis of variance revealed sognificant differences among the five conditions. Two-way analysis of variance disclosed no main effects. However, a significant interaction showed that recall was lowest in the severe stuttering-high information condition. The results are discussed in terms of attention to critical information.     

Comprehension of directly and indirectly stated main ideas and details in discourse by brain-damaged and non-brain-damaged listeners

Aphasic, right-hemisphere-damaged, and non-brain-damaged subjects heard short narrative paragraphs. Each paragraph contained four main ideas and one or more details related to each main idea. After each paragraph was presented, subjects' comprehension and retention of main ideas and details from the paragraph were tested. Some of the test items directly restated information from paragraphs and others paraphrased information from paragraphs. All groups of subjects remembered main ideas better than they remembered details, and no group of subjects was significantly affected by whether test items directly or indirectly stated information from paragraphs. Disfluent aphasic and right-hemisphere-damaged subjects' overall paragraphs comprehension scores were not significantly poorer than those of non-brain-damaged subjects. Fluent and mixed aphasic subjects' overall paragraph comprehension scores were significantly worse than those of non-brain-damaged and right-hemisphere-damaged subjects. Token Test and Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination auditory comprehension scores did not predict aphasic subjects' paragraph comprehension scores. right-hemisphere-damaged subjects' overall paragraph comprehension scores were not significantly those of non-brain-damaged and right-hemisphere-damaged subjects. Token Test and Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination auditory comprehension scores did not predict aphasic subjects' paragraph comprehension scores.     

The processing of the sounds and meanings of ongoing speech by aphasic subjects

The ability of aphasic subjects to process the sounds and meanings of ongoing speech was tested. Subjects, 10 aphasic and 20 control, heard test sentences which contained one member of phonemically similar word pairs in one of three semantic contexts: congruent, neutral, and noncongruent. Immediately after hearing a sentence, subjects were to indicate which member of the word pair had been in the sentence. All subject groups had similar overall patterns of response to the different semantic contexts. The division of aphasic subjects into groups of high and low comprehenders revealed response differences. High comprehending aphasic subjects, like control subjects, demonstrated interactive processing of the sounds and meaning of speech while low comprehending aphasic subjects did not.     

Possible effects of forced report order on tachistoscopic recognition of bilaterally presented stimuli: A response to Young and Ellis

Comparing visual field asymmetries for bilaterally presented words and corresponding line drawings, we found an RVF advantage for words and no visual field asymmetry for line drawings. We suggested that the RVF advantage previously obtained by Young, Bion, and Ellis (Brain and Language, 11, 54–65, 1980) for bilaterally presented line drawings may have resulted from a forced order of report procedure, noting that the RVF advantage was greater on trials on which subjects were forced to report in the nonpreferred right-to-left order. Young and Ellis (Brain and Language, 20, 166–171, 1983) attempt to discredit this claim and maintain their hypothesis that the RVF advantage for line drawings is attributable to better temporary storage of these stimuli by the left than the right hemisphere. In the present article, we present in greater detail our arguments for the effects of forced order of report on the perception of bilaterally presented stimuli and refute Young and Ellis's ibid. criticisms of this proposal.