Testing the interhemispheric deficit theory of dyslexia using the visual half-field technique.

A deficit in interhemispheric transfer has been proposed as a neuropsychological theory of dyslexia. Interactions between the hemispheres during word recognition can be studied using the visual half-field paradigm. The well-established recognition advantage for right visual field (RVF) words over left visual field (LVF) words is thought to reflect the additional processing costs associated with callosal transfer of LVF word representations to the language-specialised left hemisphere. In addition, a further gain in recognition for bilateral presentation of a word has been attributed to cooperative interactions between the hemispheres. These recognition advantages can therefore be seen as behavioural indices of the efficiency of callosal transfer. This study aimed to replicate the finding of an absence of the bilateral advantage in developmental dyslexia, previously reported by Henderson et al. In all, 47 dyslexic and 43 control adult participants were tested, and no significant difference was found in the size of the bilateral advantage between the two groups. Our data did however replicate the previous finding of an increased RVF-LVF difference in dyslexic participants caused by poorer accuracy for LVF words (i.e., a greater LVF cost). This evidence is compatible with the interhemispheric deficit theory of dyslexia, suggesting an impairment in the transfer of visual word information from the right to the left hemisphere during reading.

Early prediction of language and literacy problems: is 18 months too early?

There is a lack of stability in language difficulties across early childhood: most late talkers (LTs) resolve their difficulties by pre-school; and a significant number of children who were not LTs subsequently manifest language difficulties. Greater reliability in predicting individual outcomes is needed, which might be achieved by waiting until later in development when language is more stable. At 18 months, productive vocabulary scores on the Oxford Communicative Developmental Inventory were used to classify children as LTs or average talkers (ATs). Thirty matched-pairs of LTs and ATs were followed up at school-age (average age 7 years), when language and literacy outcomes were assessed. For 18 children, intermediate testing at age 4 had classified them as showing typical development (TD) or specific language impairment (SLI). After correcting for multiple comparisons, there were no significant differences between the LTs and ATs on any outcome measure, and the LTs were performing in the average range. However, there were large-sized effects on all outcomes when comparing the TD and SLI groups. LT status on its own is not determinative of language and literacy difficulties. It would therefore not be appropriate to use expressive vocabulary measures alone to screen for language difficulties at 18 months. However, children with language impairment at age 4 are at risk of enduring difficulties.