Interesting article about rapid naming deficit and dyslexia

Hi Laura,

It’s a good summary article about the double-deficit hypothesis. Just to recap my recent comments on the phonological processing researchers, note that they want to subsume the Rapid Automatic Naming issue within their PPS domain.

Andrea, in fact, made this point earlier, i.e,. that RAN was a subset of the phonological processing issue. In doing so, she is supporting the position of Torgerson and other PPS researchers. Yet, Wolf is arguing (as the main proponent of a RAN issue) that there are non-phonological issues involved. That was, in fact, my point. The PPS researchers are so hung up on reading problems being completely due to phonological issues that they either ignore the visual side, claim to have disproved any visual connection, or claim as their own a well-researched issue such as RAN.

Yet, to claim that rapid automatic naming is completely phonological in nature is clearly a stretch. You have to see it accurately, retrieve its name and speak the name all rapidly to complete the task. Clearly this involves more than just auditory skills. And, as you hinted, and as Wolf also implies in the article, it’s certainly possible that there is a visual skill deficit involved.

By the way, the previous thread got so convoluted that people seemed to conclude from my refusal to provide research citations for vision therapy’s efficacy, that there is no research support. That is not the case. There’s tons of research. I just refused to be required to provide it when that was not the point of my original post, which was to hold those who claim research support as the basis of an argument to the minimal standard of at least being required to cite the particular research that they are relying upon.

Rod

Well known names.

It is always curious when people read the same thing and infer different things. My take on Dr. Wolf is that she is asking questions on many levels and not implying anything that she doesn’t have research to support. She asks, in my feeling, what role vision has in her double-deficit hypothesis without responding to the question.

To me, this article does not present evidence for or against the existence of visual processing disorders or their intervention. It was very interesting on many other levels, however.

It is possible for someone to correctly and quickly scan something visually—yet still slowly retrieve its name from memory, or quickly say the name orally. We still have not isolated the vision variable on any cited level.

I have always wondered if binocular vision problems went along with bilateral coordination problems. If I was a researcher……

I am currently teaching Orton-Gillingham and am also an optician. I have worked with a well-renowed pediatric opthmalogist who does not believe that vision therapy by itself will help. Combined with a reading program might be a better answer. But, in all honesty, sfter working 8 years using the Orton-Gillingham method I would not spend my money on vision training. It is extremely expensive and I have seen it action at an eye clinic. I do not understand how jumping up and down on a trampoline will help you read (one of thier techniques). Vison therapy does not TEACH you phonics or how to blend the sounds together, which is what theses children with dyslexia need.

I copied this from the article. This sounds just like my son—“brain cirucits that connect visual information with verbal system fail to operate efficiently.” She also mentions that “one of the underlying problems of dyslexia may cross visual, auditory, and motor processing.” I realize she is speculating on exactly what is going on with RAN but this combination of issues is very much my son. I also do think she clearly is suggesting that there is a visual component to SOME children’s reading problems.

“In fact, rapid-naming tasks appear to measure something separate from phoneme awareness, says Wolf. The measure itself correlates only weakly with phoneme awareness. Also, Wolf and others find that children with dyslexia can have problems with both phoneme-awareness tasks and rapid-naming tasks or with just one or the other task, indicating the two are mutually exclusive. Children who have problems with both tasks tend to be at the lowest end of the reading continuum, suggesting a “double-whammy” of sorts and something beyond what is explained by phonological processes, says Wolf.

I argue that the problems underlying dyslexia are multiple,” says Wolf. “One possibility is surely phonological for some children, but there are others that must be understood. One may well be something more general that crosses many domains including visual, auditory and motor processing. We’re saying that this speed deficit in naming is but the tip of an iceberg that needs explanation.”

Wolf and Bowers believe that poor performance on the naming speed test—which uses many of the same underlying skills needed for reading—provides a clue that, in many people with dyslexia, brain circuits that connect visual information with the verbal system fail to operate efficiently. This could indicate a deficit specific to language or, more likely according to Wolf, a problem of varying degrees of generality, with some people with dyslexia having difficulty rapidly processing just visual language and others having difficulties rapidly processing several kinds of information.”

I think Wolfe is going beyond asking a question about the role vision plays in double deficit hypothesis and is providing a theory of how it is involved. Other researchers, as the article discusses, do not necessarily agree with her theory.

She says though that ” poor performance on the naming speed test—which uses many of the same underlying skills needed for reading—provides a clue that, in many people with dyslexia, brain circuits that connect visual information with the verbal system fail to operate efficiently.”

Noone, as you indicate, as this all mapped out well but I think there is at least evidence consistent with the theory that vision does play a role in SOME cases of dyslexia

Beth

There is actually significant research to support this theory. One only has to pull up the research of Prof Stein that I posted a few times and read his work along with the work his references. The critisism that the auditory only crowd consistantly site is that the correlation between an improvement in binocular vision associated with an improvement in reading is a result of the reading skill improving the vision. They don’t accept that both vision and auditory deficits could be playing a role in the reading dysfunction.

Prof. Stein isn’t exactly some Joe of the street. His accomplishments and the accomplishments of his team even outside this specific area of physiology are pretty astounding. They developed a deep brain stimulater that provides meds and or stimulation to specific areas of the brain that affect motor coordination. It is an effective and quite astounding treatment for Parkinson’s disease.

You’ll have to excuse me for going off course a bit, the nurse in me gets really excited about interesting medical breakthroughs.

Diane wrote:
>
I do not understand how
> jumping up and down on a trampoline will help you read (one
> of thier techniques). Vison therapy does not TEACH you
> phonics or how to blend the sounds together, which is what
> theses children with dyslexia need.

Hi Diane,

Several issues. I don’t think anyone who is in favor of vision therapy has claimed that it teaches you phonics or how to blend the sounds together. I agree, the jury is still out on the effectiveness of VT but if you can’t focus on the printed page, all the great techniques in the world such as OG ,L&B, and PG aren’t worth a darn even if that is what you need for remediation. I know from personal experience.

The second issue is that some folks with LD even after apparently successful remediation with OG and similar techniques still have some issues that appear visually based. We agree it is not the majority and and that OG and those remediations should be tried first. But if the problems continue to persist that seem to be visual in nature and it is clear that the previous remediations were done correctly, then I think you do a big disservice to the kid to not look in that direction.

As far as the benefit of jumping on a trampoline, an occupational therapist explained it to me this way. When I was thinking of getting it for myself as I have NLD, she stressed that I needed to find VT that addressed the vestibular system as she felt work in that area was most effective for NLDers. So perhaps what you were observing was an exercise to address those weaknesses?

By the way, I have no idea if this OT is right or not so I have no opinion about her theory. But I just wanted to provide you those thoughts.

PT

My son’s vision issues are tied to his vestibular system and for such children movement is necessary to remediate the visual issues. We did “flat” vision therapy for a time and while we saw significant changes, it didn’t totally resolve his problems. We have not done a trampoline but have done other things with motion involved, and have seen major improvements.

Betjt

Just had a conversation about this with the director of our local LMB clinic. They administer the CTOPP to measure RAN, and she said they participate in some of Torgesons studies with their data. Anyway - I certainly do believe that for some kids these things are related neurologically. I also believe there are dyslexic kids with “simple” phonemic awareness issues. I bet these are the kids that are star athletes, visual thinkers ala Ron Davis ie, not my kid who clearly has a stronger auditory channel than visual, has vestibular system issues, and apparently, if you believe the CTOPP, average RAN.

Great article.
When I read this part
” Although music and athletics require fast temporal processing, they’re not obviously equivalent to the speed with which the brain has to process words to read and comprehend a sentence, he says. Besides, we don’t expect everyone to be great athletes and musicians, but we do expect everyone to be reading experts. “

I immediately thought of IM - originally developed to improve musician’s timing, and now used for athletic performance.

Wow, take a few days off and look at all the posts! I even see myself paraphrased, although not correctly. I find Maryanne Wolf’s work very exciting. She came out of the same doctoral program that I did, also studied with the phenomenal Jeanne Chall, and has been conducting research on RAN for many years. I’m not sure if she’s still doing this, but for years she followed the same group of children to see how their naming skills were progressing over time. She’s a very dedicated and dynamic personality. I’ve heard her speak a number of times and recommend attending one of her presentations if you have the chance.

First, Rod, please explain what PPS stands for. You’ve said more than once on this board that “they,” and you seem to think that includes me, “want to subsume the Rapid Automatic Naming issue within their PPS domain.” Since when did this discussion become one of they and us? When did a new reading war get invented? Who got to decide which side I’m on?

In fact, there is no huge debate on this issue except on this board. There is no “they” who are trying to exclude you from their theories. There’s research and there are theories. And that’s all. As far as I can tell from the article by Dr. Wolf that was cited or from her other work, she does *not* imply that the Double Deficit Theory indicates a visual processing deficit. She theorizes that there may be a problem with the brain circuits that connect visual information (I assume this would be letters and words when reading) with the verbal system. She is speculating about the brain circuits that connect the visual and phonological systems. She is not speculating to the best of my knowledge that there’s a breakdown in visual processing. However, before a bunch of people post that their children, students, etc. do have visual processing problems, please understand that I’m not saying that there can’t be such a breakdown. I just don’t see it in her statements.

Rod writes:

<>

Wolf is not arguing that. She is theorizing that something larger than RAN may be causing the difficulty, and even that is only a theory. She does believe that RAN is separate from phonemic awareness. Others don’t. I don’t know what the reality is, but it will be interesting to find out.

Rod wrote that:

<>

More of the them and us issue. Setting that aside, researchers who study beginning reading (I’m not sure what PPS means) didn’t set out to ignore anything. When they first began to try to isolate the essential factors that affect reading, they didn’t only include phonological processing; it’s just that phonological processing turned out to be a/the core deficit. Now maybe they didn’t include all of the visual processing subtypes that you’d prefer. I don’t know. But there was no conspiracy to exclude a branch of information.

Today, a lot of the research is focused on the phonological piece because of the findings from previous studies, but it didn’t start out that way. And this idea that “they” want to claim RAN as “their” own is just a distortion. In fact, RAN doesn’t belong to Maryanne Wolfe or to Rod or to me or to anyone. Many researchers have studied it for over 30 years. It was one of the variables that was studied in those earlier research studies that were searching for the core deficits in reading disability. Just because Dr. Wolf believes that it’s a separate entity—and I’m not saying that she’s wrong because I don’t know that yet—doesn’t mean that all previous and future research that follows another line of inquiry is “claiming” it.

I want to clarify one last time what I think about phonological processing in this is-it-visual-or-not continued conversation. And by the way, I see it as a conversation, not as different sides lining up their troops. I wrote that phonological processing was auditory. I’ve been thinking a lot about that and talking to people about it, and I still believe that, because phonemes or letter sounds are *sounds* and therefore are heard. However, reading isn’t entirely auditory. When we read, we look at the words (or touch them if we’re using braille). Obviously a breakdown or deficit in the visual system either with acuity or with perceptual processing is going to affect the reading process and interfere with phonological processing. And so can attention, memory, executive functioning, and a whole host of other variables.

The written information has to be filtered through the eyes, hands, brain, etc. However, although the text is represented by graphemes, it’s still linguistically coded. So I think that there’s other processing involved, but it still comes down to the fact that these are phonological processes. I think that the only kids that would have serious problems with the “visual” part that’s separate from the phonological part are kids with visual perceptual or visual spatial issues. And this isn’t a new thought—we’ve always known this. I think that the confusion came about when I said that phonological processing was auditory and a few others said no, there are also visual components. Phonological processing is based in the phoneme and is therefore auditory, but one has to access the letters through another sense and in some cases weaknesses in those other modes—visual, spatial, tactile—could interfere, as could attention, memory, executive functioning, and probably other variables.

A long-winded reply again, but I haven’t posted in a while.

In an earlier post, Andrea, you wrote (in an apparent attempt to correct what you implied was a misrepresentation of mine):

“And incidentally, rapid naming is one kind of phonological processing, not a separate category.”

I didn’t bother to reply then because I wasn’t about to go digging up Wolf’s work but then Laura posted the link to that article which made replying much more convenient.

As for the us versus them stuff, if you haven’t gleaned a clear impression from the writers of the PPS (phonological processing skills) research articles that they are extremely reluctant to grant the possibility of vision skill deficits underlying some reading problems, then you haven’t read the research…..and I know you must have. (And remember, this all started when Jimmy Kilpatrick, who never bothered to respond afterwards, jumped in and claimed that all the research he trusted disproved the vision link to reading

There will always be us versus them situations as long as there is controversy. In debate, it is illogical to imply that one is being rude and setting one group against the other. But, maybe it’s a debate tactic?…

Someday, not in the too distant future I hope, the contention that most reading problems are not in any way due to visual problems, given the massive amount of visual processing involved in the task, will seem downright stupid. And I know this because of the results I am seeing, not because of results I’m reading in a journal in the library.

Just to be clear, Andrea, I’m not calling you or anyone in here stupid. I’m just saying that the visual system is huge and complex, and there are extremely valid reasons why kids could have reading problems due to deficient basic vision skills. The details are laid out in many optometric articles and in many books on vision therapy.

Due to a strange blend of politics, this information is ignored by the reading researchers and, even worse, impugned by the opthamologists who should know better. This is a stupid situation, but it will change someday….Rod

wouldn’t use the word “dyslexia” when she evaluated my daughter. My daughter has APD, VPD, ADD, SI, motor planning problems and fine and gross motor skill problems. I said, “Are you saying my daughter is dyslexic?” to which she replied, “I don’t like that word”. I am ONLY A MOM. Personally, I don’t care if she is “dyslexic”. If she is, she is more like Q+D (Quadruple dyslexic, plus). All I care is that I find the core problems and remediate them as much as possible.

The way I figure is is this: dylexia = pa problems and APD problems (can’t hear difference in words)
Dysgraphia = fine motor problems, motor planning problems and VPD
Dyspraxia - gross motor problems, motor planning problems and SI
Etc.
I see it as Dyslexia being the big thundercloud and all the raindrops are the different deficits: APD, VPD, etc. That’s why no two dyslexics are alike and different remediations benefit some and not others. (This is how my simple little brain works it out. MIND YOU, I have no letters behind my name except MOM. :-)!

All I know is that I sent her to LMB, SI OT, keyboarding and I constantly work with her. It seems to be working. No she will probably never read as well as some, but others aren’t as creative as she is. (like me)

Again, this was written by Leah, M.om.

Rod,

I don’t use debate tactics on this board because I don’t come here to debate anything. I post here to supply information and to answer questions. I’m not trying to win anyone over to my side because I don’t have a side except perhaps the research evidence.

Jimmy, like most of us I’m sure, is a busy person. If he didn’t respond to your question, it may be because he was too busy or perhaps because Susan Long posted over 90 reference citations of the sort you’d requested, so there was no need for him to respond. I wouldn’t presume to answer for him, but I do think it’s unfair to say that he didn’t bother to respond.

No serious researcher to my knowledge has said that there can’t be visual processing deficits that underly some reading problems. On the other hand, it’s unrealistic to expect people who are conducting a study on one issue to state all the other things that could contribute to reading difficulty. That would take another study, many of which have already been conducted. They can only address the variables that they’re studying, and the results are usually presented as the amount of variance in reading that can be accounted for. That’s technical jargon, but those who read research will find it familiar. As there is never 100 percent accounted for by the variable under study, there is always room for other factors.

Most researchers do consider RAN to be a kind of phonological processing. Obviously a few others such as Dr. Wolf disagree. As long as the issue is being studied and addressed, I don’t know how important the umbrella label is, although it’s certainly interesting. Until I see more definitive evidence to convince me otherwise, I’ll continue to believe that RAN is a kind of phonological processing. However, as I said in the last post, letters and words do have to be filtered through another mode, usually visual, so that difficulties in that realm could interfere with phonological processing, as could other cognitive factors such as attention, memory, and executive functioning.

You and I could no doubt go back and forth in a he said, she said format, but I don’t intend to continue it.

Hi Andrea,

In an attempt to re-focus on the issue again, let me take one thing you said in the above post.

You stated: “I think that the only kids that would have serious problems with the “visual” part that’s separate from the phonological part are kids with visual perceptual or visual spatial issues. And this isn’t a new thought—we’ve always known this.”

Now, please consider again what I’m saying. Your statement above is an excellent example of the way the visual side of the reading problem is being treated by the PPS (Phonological Processing Skills) researchers.

You say “I THINK that the ONLY kids…” Fine. But then you conclude with “And this isn’t a new thought — we’ve ALWAYS KNOWN this.”

Well, that’s certainly the point of view of the PPS researchers. And you, in a close parallel to Jimmy’s approach, are treating it as something we’ve “always known.” Case closed. The problem is that your opinion is probably not correct. There are very likely to be other visual issues at work here, issues lying below the visual perception level, i.e., issues of eye tracking and binocular efficiency.

The reason I keep calling you to task on this Andrea, is that you are obviously well-read and people are likely to trust your “I think” on this if it goes unanswered. Many of these readers have kids who, I suspect, would benefit from vision therapy, and I want to make sure that they at least know that some of us think it is a possible solution to their child’s problem…..Rod

P.S. On another tangent, Andrea, how WOULD a teacher go about telling a parent that they suspected a problem in basic visual skills that needed assessing? This is a problem in many schools because administrators are concerned that they might then end up paying for yet another service. Any thoughts?

Someone posted information about dysdeitic (?spelling) dyslexics. I have seen it called visual dyslexia. This is my son. He has no apd but severe visual issues. He is definitely very creative. I think one of the reasons that I get so frustrated with the school is that they don’t really have alot of experience or know how to deal with a child with my son’s specific issues. He definitely fits the dyslexia/creative mold but I think they think you have to have auditory issues to be dyslexic. So they don’t really know what to make of him or how to help. Poor boy has a deficit that many don’t think exists.

I could care less what they called him too. I just want them to not destroy him emotionally and I have made that very clear. Do what you want with the boy but don’t you dare touch his self esteem.

Victoria made a very good point. One that I hope anyone who works with children would take to heart. If you find what you are currently doing isn’t working then go with the experimental stuff. This is exactly what is done in medicine so there is precedence. Please don’t write a child off as a non learner just because you as an individual aren’t getting through.

PT,

Correct again. The vestibular system affects vision. You won’t find many opthamologists up on this fact as the tend to more interested in areas like the cornea, retina etc etc.

This is related to the brain and a neurologist can help someone who was unclear clarify this.

With all this debate going on from people in education one must realize that the field of neuroscience has proven many things that educators have not as of yet developed an understanding of. It is fairly complex and therefore somewhat understandable.

If you were to say get hit on the head and suffer brain injury you would be treated through therapies that targeted the deficits you encountered. Therapies that might even include jumping on a trampoline. This is not new but has been going on successfully for decades. It is sad that all the knowledge that is available on the brain is not looked at by those who are often put in the position of diagnosing and treating children with the brain based disorder called LD.

Pubmed is the medical database where many can get specific questions about the brain answered.

Leah,
Loved your last post. My evaluator didn’t like the word “dyslexic” or the label NLD for my son. In fact noone has liked any name for what’s he’s got going on. Which made it challenging for us to figure out what we were supposed to do. But thanks to the parents and educators I’ve met here and in real life we’ve sorted it out. Like you. Love the rain cloud metaphor.
Karen, M.o.m.

Thanks Linda for clarifying that about the vestibular system. I love pubmed and have checked it out many times on research about psych meds. Looks like I need to go back there again and see what information there is on the brain.

PT

” how WOULD a teacher go about telling a parent that they suspected a problem in basic visual skills that needed assessing? This is a problem in many schools because administrators are concerned that they might then end up paying for yet another service. Any thoughts?”

Reply

How would you respond, Rod? First, what would a teacher observe?
Secondly, how would the teacher deal with the school’s possible financial responsibility? Thirdly, are there some things a teacher or parent could do to remediate these issues? Fourthly, do you find in your practice that vision therapy without a good multisensory remdial program is enough for a learning disabled student?

> How would you respond, Rod? First, what would a teacher observe?

The answer to this, Linda, would be too lengthy. However, if one of the parents had trouble learning to read also, and if the child is obviously trying to get one eye out of the reading process, the odds are almost 100% that they have a vision problem, in my opinion. The problem comes when the symptoms aren’t so obvious. I have a checklist, as do the behavioral optometrists, which helps parents and educators look for vision issues. I would rather discuss the checklist in a new thread at some point.

> Secondly, how would the teacher deal with the school’s possible financial responsibility?

This, of course, is what I’m hoping someone actually knows and can contribute here. I think similar situations arise when a need for OT or PT is determined. VT is just another case. Right now, the only suggestion I’ve heard is that the teacher/school administrators emphasize that they are suggesting a vision examination referral, and that vision is a health issue which is the financial responsibility of the parents. Then, there is the added problem of somehow guiding the parent to the optometrist who has a vision therapy department, as a referral to an ophthamologist or another optometrist is likely just to be a waste of the parents’ money (if the child actually needs VT.)

> Thirdly, are there some things a teacher or parent could do to remediate these issues?

Good question, and to some extent, I believe the answer is “yes,” but I don’t know the details. But, for instance, I am hopeful that many kids would avoid the vision-related problems altogether if a developmentally-appropriate reading method were used.

For example, the Spalding Method is very specific on covering certain eye-hand coordination details before proceeding on to reading instruction. Similarly, the Scandinavian countries don’t even begin reading instruction until age 7 due to a concern that developmental processes be given time to mature. In addition, there are things teachers can do along the lines of skill development that would probably help…this is beyond my experience.

However, the pushing of reading instruction down into Kindergarten and even pre-school is not necessarily the way to go. Some kids will be developmentally ready, but others? They will just become discouraged even earlier, I’m afraid.

> Fourthly, do you find in your practice that vision therapy without a good multisensory remdial program is enough for a learning disabled student?

Just to be clear, my practice IS providing a good multisensory remedial program. I am NOT a vision therapist. I discuss VT so often in here simply because I found that I could not successfully remediate a fairly large percentage of the lowest 10% of readers using just the reading program.

I found that many of the kids I was working with needed vision therapy. Some needed it a lot. One child would actually begin bawling half way through the first page of print.) Following vision therapy, I found him a delight to work with and he progressed to independent reading. He was my first referral to VT, incidentally.

Since finding, and working with, a good vision therapy department, I have encountered no child that could not be taught to read…really. I’m sure they are out there, but I’ve not yet encountered them. In some cases, they make significant gains during VT. These are usually the kids who’ve already had the phonics programs but just weren’t able to use them successfully due to visual confusion.

In other cases, even after their vision deficits have been addressed, they still don’t understand how the English code actually works or they have poorly developed auditory skills. This is where I come into the picture. The method I use is quite effective in teaching the auditory skills of segmenting, blending and phoneme manipulation, and it gets the code in their head efficiently.

Once these three issues are in place (vision skills, auditory skills and an understanding of phonics) kids start reading on their own. This is the reason for my attempts to get those relying on the NICHD research to discuss that part of the research disclaiming VT’s effectiveness. That research is being used as justification by many to ignore the vision side of the equation, a side which many of us know is important. And I’m not taking just about a few people in here relying on such research….it’s a big issue. Especially when it has them concluding that some children will simply never enjoy reading. Until they address the vision side, they will always have some kids who fail to enjoy reading.

One caveat, and it’s an important one. The children I see have a concerned parent at their side….homework gets done, they are encouraged to read, etc. While I don’t think that this is necessarily essential, it is obviously important and makes my work easier…..Rod

Hi Andrea,

I have a book that is not actually about reading but it mentions someone who due to a deficit in visual working memory has trouble fully visually processing graphemes and can’t relate them to the corresponding letter sounds. That sounds like what you are talking about in believing that Dr. Wolf is speculating about the brain circuits that connect the visual and phonological systems.

Am I on the right track or not? I really am trying to understand what is involved in reading and greatly appreciate your posts.

PT

Hello PT,

It’s hard to say what the author of the book meant without seeing it, but if someone has difficulty with working memory, it would be more difficult to associate the grapheme with the phoneme. Some people define working memory as short-term memory, or keeping information in memory long enough to process it, sometimes so that it can eventually become a long-term memory. Others interpret working memory as keeping the information in memory for the short-term but using it in some way. I’m not sure what visual working memory is. Are you saying that this person had difficulty with working memory but only for visual information? That would be unusual because visual information comes in different forms and is processed differently, for example phonological vs. graphic information. Regardless, the difficulty would be in maintaining the memory long enough to make a solid association with the phoneme. I suppose that could be because of weak visual skills or weak phonological skills, and/or weak working memory skills, and/or weak associational skills. And there are probably more reasons that I haven’t thought of. That’s why for readers who have difficulty acquiring letter-sound associations, I think that a multisensory approach often works better than relying on only the visual and auditory modes. With a lot of systematic instruction and repetition, the associations can usually get into long-term memory. I don’t think that’s what Dr. Wolf meant though. From the quotation in the article, it sounds to me as though she’s theorizing about something larger than that—something in the brain that would affect the connections between different kinds of processing systems. We don’t know what that is; she was just speculating. Perhaps we’ll know in time if she’s right, and if so, exactly what the problem is.

While you are trying to understand the reading process, this theory is still only a theory, but there’s a lot that we do know about beginning reading from phonemic awareness to decoding to automatic word recognition, and about intermediate and advanced reading comprehension. And there’s a lot we know about brain function—memory, attention, executive functioning, motivation, attitude, etc.

Hello,

I see the potential for confusion because of the way I phrased something. I wrote, “Are you saying that this person had difficulty with working memory but only for visual information? That would be unusual because visual information comes in different forms and is processed differently, for example phonological vs. graphic information.”

What I was trying to say that was that I thought it would be unusual to have difficulty with working memory for only visual information. I would think that one might have difficulty with working memory for linguistically coded (phonological information) whether it was presented visually or not OR for graphic information OR for all kinds of information (a more generalized problem with working memory. By graphic information I mean nonlinguistic information—faces, photographs, geometric shapes, etc. This is visual but not language-based.

Given the discussions we’ve been having here about phonological processing and how it’s processed, I didn’t want to be misinterpreted because of the muddy way I expressed myself. Hope this helps.

Hi PT,
Dr. Wolf’s research focuses specifically on identifying, understanding, and treating what she believes is a second core deficit in developmental dyslexia. Specifically Naming-Speed Deficits which would be related to reading fluency or automaticity.

Keep in mind, the research I’m referring to describes a particular subset of poor readers (or actually two subsets!). (1) Dyslexics with good phonological and blending skills, but poor naming speed; and (2) Dyslexics deficient in both phonological skills and naming speed. And although I’m describing readers who fall into this category as a “subset,” Dr. Wolf maintains that there is an extensive body of research indicating that the majority of impaired readers have marked naming-speed problems.

With regard to this, Dr. Wolf doesn’t specifically indicate one area of processing (visual or otherwise) being responsible for RAN deficit. In a case study she was involved with titled, ‘ “I like to take my own sweet time”: Case Study of a Child with Naming-Speed Deficits and Reading Disabilities,” she writes that “Because naming speed resperesents a complex ensemble of attentional, perceptual, phonological access and retrieval, semantic, and motoric processes, there can be multiple sources of disruption that cause naming-speed deficits in children with reading disabilities.”

I’ve been very interested in Dr. Wolf’s research because my own child falls into category #1 (which is the least researched subset of impaired readers). My son tests as having superior phonological and blending skills, but severe rapid naming deficit. Although he’s a much more extreme version of the test subject (his test scores swing much higher and lower than the child in the study), I was thrilled to find research data about a child with a similar reading disability.

One of the things that intrigued me about this study is that the research subject (a 9-year-old boy) was evaluated by an O.T. and reported to have difficulty in motor planning and integrating multiple sensory information. This seemed to me like an interesting coincidence because my son falls in the same category. However, Dr. Wolf points out although they now have a broader profile of the characteristics of readers with naming-speed deficits, they cannot generalize this to other children until further in-depth analyses are done. No conclusion can be made on the basis of a single case study. So, the motor planning conincidence is probably just that…a coincidence.

Until more research has been done, this is all still pretty hypothetical.

Hi Andrea,

You said:

< saying that this person had difficulty with working memory
but only for visual information? That would be unusual
because visual information comes in different forms and is
processed differently, for example phonological vs. graphic
information.>>

Initially, that is what I was thinking. But you make an excellent point and when I thought about how I seem to process information in reading, what you’re saying makes perfect sense. It seems I am trying to use the limited visualization skills I have but at the same time, I feel my auditory chanel being activated.

< the quotation in the article, it sounds to me as though she’s
theorizing about something larger than that—something in the
brain that would affect the connections between different
kinds of processing systems. >>

Again, I see what you’re saying. It sounds like Dr. Wolf is looking at matters from a global perspective regarding the brain, while the example I provide was just a piece of the puzzle.

executive functioning, motivation, attitude, etc.>>

Can you tell me where the heck I can find some good articles on the role of executive function in reading? What I am looking for in particular is if there is anything on how the organizing difficulties associated with executive function might cause comprehension difficulties. It just seems logical to me that if you have difficulty with organization in general, when you read a long passage, you are going to have difficulties in organizing what you read into the main and supporting ideas. But unfortunately, the only major study I have seen was one that took place in Australia on kids with ADD and X F difficulties who had trouble remembering the purpose of reading, which can also occur with those difficulties.

Sorry Andrea, I didn’t mean to get off the subject. Thank you for your explanation as you done a great job of answering my question. I do realize though that I need to go back and look at the research that was done to determine that phonological processing is the core issue so I have a better understanding of how these folks arrived at their conclusion and why.

PT

Thanks Andrea, I think I did understand what you were saying but I appreciate your clarification. No apologies are necessary in my opinion.

PT

Hi Laura,

Near the end of your post, you mentioned the motor planning issue being a coincidence. I have a vague recollection of mentioning that in a post to you but I can’t find it. It drives me crazy.

I hear what you’re saying though on the RAN issue and thanks for reminding me what the overall gist was. My guess is I would have trouble with this issue although I don’t know for sure.

Frustrating isn’t it when you think your kid presents a certain profile but there isn’t enough solid research to back up what you say. As I say constantly after I have read alot of information and become overloaded “Who the heck knows?”

PT

One more interesting thing about this case study. The child in it had very good expressive language skills despite motor planning and naming speed deficits.

Although my son has many similarities to the child in this study, this was not not one of them. My son does not have strong expressive language skills and he does have word-finding problems. Perhaps this is because my son’s naming-speed deficit is much more severe than the child in the study?

But even more interesting is that naming-speed deficits can affect reading ability even when a child has strong verbal skills. So, this may infer to me that merely concentrating on verbal skills and working to build expressive langague skills may not necessarily help specifically with reading (although expressive langauge skills are important and should be worked on regardless of their relation to reading).

According to Dr. Wolf, “Naming speed is an end product of both lower level perceptual, attentional, articulatory, and lexical retrieval processses and higher level cognitive and linguistic processes, each of which require extremely rapid rates of processing.” So, in other words, it appears to be a global processing-speed problem.

It is just as possible to have word retrieval problems and NO issues with visual/verbal integration. The therapist who worked with my son with IM explained this all to me, although I have lost the details of the different parts of the brain involved. I, for example, have no issues with RAN, am a fast and efficient reader but often can’t find the word I want, especially as I have aged!!!

I know the therapy we’ve done for RAN has improved my son’s word finding skills immens. So, based on our experience, it seems that the two can be connected and that remediation focusing on rapid retrieval of images can generalize to speech. However, since RAN and word retrieval can also appear in isolation, it is logically possible that the two problems can appear in one person and stem from different parts of the brain and thus not be connected. Then, you would not expect carry over from one domain to another.

The brain is amazingly complex.

Beth

Thanks for the response.

Your clarity in writing was excellent. From what I’ve read of Dr. Wolfe, I agree with your interpretations.

Finally, many scientists discount coincidence, but believe that events are frequent or infrequent in varying degrees. In the whole world, I’m sure there are others like your son. The question on this—and other recently- hashed subjects—is how frequent?

Did you know that Dr. Wolfe is scheduled to present with Dr. Reid Lyon at the LDA conference in Chicago in February? I’m hoping for a peak into upcoming literature!

The problem for parents is different than for research scientists. My kid is not your “average” LD kid. I think that protocols should be developed, just like in medicine, which fit most of the kids with reading problems. But there are always going to be some that do not fit that mainstream prescription.

I also think, based on my own experience and some reading, that the motor component is going to eventually be recognized as critical to certain types of learning disabilities. I think that is what Interactive Metronome is hitting at and controlled studies show improvements in reading as well as in attention. The theoretical literature has not yet caught up to the practical applications.

Beth

Hello PT,

<>

Actually, I can’t cite those sources. Executive functioning is really the psychologist or neuropsychologist’s domain. Any reading this board who want to comment? My understanding from my consultations with psychologists is that someone with organizational issues will often have difficulty with reading comprehension and with written expression, but I can’t tell you where to look it up. Unless some lurking psych cares to respond, I’d suggest an ERIC search for the journals (not the documents which can be loaded with some weak stuff). You can conduct an ERIC search for free online and even read the abstract before going to the library and looking at the article. I recently discovered that you could actually chat live with an ERIC librarian if you had a question. What a terrific service. When I tried it, the online librarian sent up pages for me to look at and then at my request sent me a free transcript of our conversation. How cool is that?

<<>

You weren’t off the topic, just extending it. Your questions are interesting and I like the way you reason things out. You seem to make good use of this board and that’s wonderful. Keep asking questions and sharing your experiences. We all benefit from each other’s thinking.

I agree that it should be done like it is done in medicine. Specific issues = specific inteventions. There are preordained standards to follow for everything. You don’t have to reinvent the wheel everytime. In medicine; you suspect a problem based on the symptoms then you test to rule out the various entities that could be causing the symptoms. Once you have ruled out certain issues, you test some more until you understand the root cause. Then there already are specific interventions that are available to address specific root causes. Often treatment can be the easy part.

I have not seen where education has gotten to the point of doing a good job idenitfying specific issues so I think it will be a long time. There just seems to be alot of trial and error and alot of guesswork.

Susan,
If you attend that conference please share with me what you learn!!!

I think part of the difficulty in knowing frequency or infrequency is compounded by inadequate identification.

There’s not enough research, and not enough people aware of what research there is.