Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25018723›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2014

What does the brain of children with developmental dyslexia tell us about reading improvement? ERP evidence from an intervention study.

Sandra Hasko, Katarina Groth, Jennifer Bruder, Jürgen Bartling, Gerd Schulte-Körne

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05376696 (Assessing Behavioural and Electrophysiological Effects of Reading Intervention in School-age Children With Dyslexia), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05376696 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Assessing Behavioural and Electrophysiological Effects of Reading Intervention in School-age Children With Dyslexia

TypeinterventionalSponsorMcGill UniversityRan2022 to 2023Enrolled30ConditionsEEGArmsSet For Variability, Current Best Practices
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sandra HaskoDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Munich Munich, Germany.
Katarina GrothDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Munich Munich, Germany.
Jennifer BruderDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Munich Munich, Germany.
Jürgen BartlingDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Munich Munich, Germany.
Gerd Schulte-KörneDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Munich Munich, Germany.
München Klinik · DELMU Klinikum · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intervention is key to managing developmental dyslexia (DD), but not all children with DD benefit from treatment. Some children improve (improvers, IMP), whereas others do not improve (non-improvers, NIMP). Neurobiological differences between IMP and NIMP have been suggested, but studies comparing IMP and NIMP in childhood are missing. The present study examined whether ERP patterns change with treatment and differ between IMP and NIMP. We investigated the ERPs of 28 children with DD and 25 control children (CON) while performing a phonological lexical decision (PLD) task before and after a 6-month intervention. After intervention children with DD were divided into IMP (n = 11) and NIMP (n = 17). In the PLD-task children were visually presented with words, pseudohomophones, pseudowords, and false fonts and had to decide whether the presented stimulus sounded like an existing German word or not. Prior to intervention IMP showed higher N300 amplitudes over fronto-temporal electrodes compared to NIMP and CON and N400 amplitudes were attenuated in both IMP and NIMP compared to CON. After intervention N300 amplitudes of IMP were comparable to those of CON and NIMP. This suggests that the N300, which has been related to phonological access of orthographic stimuli and integration of orthographic and phonological representations, might index a compensatory mechanism or precursor that facilitates reading improvement. The N400, which is thought to reflect grapheme-phoneme conversion or the access to the orthographic lexicon increased in IMP from pre to post and was comparable to CON after intervention. Correlations between N300 amplitudes pre, growth in reading ability and N400 amplitudes post indicated that higher N300 amplitudes might be important for reading improvement and increase in N400 amplitudes. The results suggest that children with DD, showing the same cognitive profile might differ regarding their neuronal profile which could further influence reading improvement.

Indexed as

developmental dyslexiaelectrophysiologyimprovementinterventionN300N400non-improvementtreatment

Identifiers

PMID25018723
PMCPMC4071643
OpenAlexW2166108310

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.