Is learning a logographic script easier than reading an alphabetic script for German children with dyslexia?

PURPOSE: Developmental dyslexia in alphabetic languages (DD) is characterized by a phonological deficit. Since logographic scripts rely predominantly on visual and morphological processing, reading performance in DD can be assumed to be less impaired when reading logographic scripts. METHODS: 40 German-speaking children (18 with DD, 22 not reading-impaired-group C; 9-11 years) received Chinese lessons. Eye movements (EM) were recorded during naming single alphabetic words, pictures (confrontational) and Chinese characters to be named in German and Chinese. The main outcome variables were: Articulation latency, numbers and durations of fixations. Quality of life (QoL) was assessed by questionnaires. RESULTS: While reading alphabetic words, articulation latencies and numbers of fixations were significantly higher for group DD than for group C (AL-DD = 1.13, AL-C = 0.84, p< .001; FN-DD = 3.50; FN-C = 2.00, p< .001). For naming pictures and Chinese characters in German and in Chinese, no significant group differences were found for any of the EM variables. The percentage of correct answers was high for German naming (DD = 86.67%, C = 95.24%; p = .015) and lower for Chinese naming in both groups, but significantly lower in group DD, especially for Chinese naming (DD = 56.67%, C: 83.77%; p = .003). QoL differed between groups from the children's perspective only at posttest. Parents of group DD perceived their children`s QoL to be lower compared with parents of group C at pre- and posttest. CONCLUSIONS: Children with dyslexia performed as well as group C during naming Chinese characters in German and in Chinese regarding their EM variables, presumably because they processed Chinese characters by the visuo-spatial pathway with direct access to the semantic system. However, the significantly lower percentage of correct answers especially during Chinese naming showed that group DD had more difficulties naming Chinese characters than group C, which could be attributed to their phonological deficit, among other factors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German clinical trials register (DRKS00015697).

Comparing Reading Speeds for Reading Standardized Single Sentences and Paragraphs in Patients with Maculopathy.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare reading speeds (RS) of either paragraphs of text or single sentences in patients with maculopathy by investigating the repeatability of RS to decide which text type to use in studies on patients with maculopathy. METHODS: RS was measured for standardized texts in 25 participants with a central scotoma due to maculopathy (mean age 77.8 years ± 9.9 SD, mean binocular visual acuity 0.65 logMAR (±0.85 SD), median magnification requirement 3-fold). Reading 3 single sentences taken from the Radner reading charts (sample #1, #2, and #3) of 14 words and reading 3 paragraphs of International Reading Speed Texts (IReST, sample # 3, #6, and #10) with a mean of 132 (±3.2 SD) words, each in German, were compared. The 6 texts were read aloud in random order from a closed-circuit TV system, with size adjusted according to the individual magnification requirement. Reading time was measured by stopwatch, and speed was calculated in correctly read words per minute (wpm). Differences in RS depending on text length (single sentence vs. paragraph) and text sample were calculated by the Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: The mean RS showed no significant difference between 2 charts of the same kind (sentences: 93 wpm ± 37 SD; paragraphs: 95 wpm ± 38 SD). RS differences between 2 charts were lower in paragraphs than in single sentences. Highest correlations of RS between all 6 texts existed between the 3 IReST text samples (r = 0.98, 0.98, and 0.98) compared with the 3 Radner sentences (r = 0.89, 0.81, and 0.90). The inter-chart reliability (coefficient of repeatability) was smaller for the paragraphs (12.9 wpm) than for the single sentences (36.4 wpm). CONCLUSION: In patients with maculopathy, single sentences are well suited for single measurement of RS. For repeated measurements (e.g., monitoring the course of a reading disorder or assessing effects of interventions), paragraphs are preferable because of their lower variability of RS between the paragraphs.