COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2006, 23 (4), 621 – 642

Visual and auditory processing and component reading

skills in developmental dyslexia

Lisa Y. Gibson, John H. Hogben, and Janet Fletcher

The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia

Previous research suggests that children with developmental dyslexia have low-level visual and
auditory deficits. The present study further examines these proposed deficits and how they relate to
component reading skills. Children with dyslexia and control children were administered measures
of visual and auditory processing and a battery of reading tasks, including nonword and irregular-
word reading, as measures of phonological and orthographic skills. Significant group differences
were found on all visual and auditory tasks. However, at an individual level only a minority of dyslexics
had visual and auditory deficits. In both dyslexics and controls, visual processing was not related to
component reading skills, while weak associations were found between auditory processing and pho-
nological decoding skills. The results of the present study suggest that dyslexia is not characterized by
core deficits in visual and auditory processing. The results are discussed in terms of a general nonsen-
sory problem with task completion.

Developmental dyslexia refers to the condition of Visual deficits in dyslexia

individuals who, despite average or above-
average intelligence, adequate educational oppor-
tunity, and absence of behavioural, emotional, or
organic disorders, have a profound deficit in
reading skills (Rutter & Yule, 1975). Current
estimates suggest that dyslexia affects between 3
and 10% of school children (Snowling, 2000).
Despite decades of research, the underlying basis
of this disorder remains unclear. Research into
the biological basis of dyslexia has focused on
deficits in visual and auditory processing.
One of the more traditional and long-standing
theories about dyslexia, albeit controversial, is
the magnocellular (magno) deficit hypothesis
(Stein & Walsh, 1997). According to this theory,
individuals with dyslexia have a specific low-level
deficit in the visual magno pathway. The magno
pathway originates in the retina and projects to
the visual cortex via the magno layers of the
lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN).
Studies conducted with nonhuman primates
have shown that lesions to the magno layers of

Correspondence should be addressed to Lisa Gibson, Telethon Institute for Child Health Research, Centre for Child Health
Research, The University of Western Australia, PO Box 855, West Perth WA 6872 Australia. (Email: lisag@ichr.uwa.edu.au).
The authors would like to thank all the children and families for giving up their time to be involved in this study. We would also
like to thank those who helped with the recruiting process: Dyslexia-SPELD Foundation, The University of Western Australia
Child Study Centre Clinic, Wembley Primary School, Spearwood Alternative School, Shelley Farrow, Elize De Rooster, Anne
Nicholls, and Barbara Pocklington.

# 2006 Psychology Press Ltd 621

http://www.psypress.com/cogneuropsychology DOI:10.1080/02643290500412545
GIBSON, HOGBEN, FLETCHER
the LGN result in reduced contrast sensitivity to
stimuli with both low spatial frequency and high
temporal frequency (e.g., Merigan & Maunsell,
1990). The magno pathway is usually character-
ized as primarily a flicker or motion-detecting
system (see Livingstone & Hubel, 1988, for a
more detailed review).
Empirical evidence for a magno deficit is based
on psychophysical studies that have found that
dyslexics have decreased sensitivity to visual
stimuli that assess the properties of the magno
system (see Lovegrove, Martin, & Slaghuis,
1986, for a review). For example, dyslexics show
reduced contrast sensitivity at lower spatial fre-
quencies (Martin & Lovegrove, 1984, 1988) as
well as reduced sensitivity to flicker, especially at
high temporal frequencies (Martin & Lovegrove,
1987, 1988). In addition, decreases in sensitivity
to motion have been found using coherent dot
motion tasks (Cornelissen, Richardson, Mason,
Fowler, & Stein, 1995; Slaghuis & Ryan, 1999;
Talcott et al., 1998).
The psychophysical evidence for a magno
deficit in dyslexia is corroborated by anatomical
and physiological evidence. Livingstone, Rosen,
Drislane, and Galaburda (1991) found abnormal-
ities, including reduced cell size, in the magno
layers of the LGN but not the parvo layers of dys-
lexics’ brains. Brain imaging studies have shown
that dyslexics have lower levels of activation to
coherent motion in area MT than have control
subjects (Eden et al., 1996).
Despite this seemingly strong evidence for a
magno deficit in dyslexics, this theory has received
growing criticism. Some studies have failed to
replicate findings of a visual magno deficit
among dyslexics (e.g., Johannes, Kussmaul,
Munte, & Mangun, 1996; Smith, Early, &
Grogan, 1986; Spinelli et al., 1997; Victor,
Conte, Burton, & Nass, 1993; Walther-Müller,
1995). Also, other studies have found deficits
outside the range predicted by the magno deficit
hypothesis (Amitay, Ben-Yehudah, Banai, &
Ahissar, 2002; Skottun, 2000). Additionally,
while studies report group differences between
dyslexics and controls, those studies that include
individual data reveal that only a minority of
622 COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2006, 23 (4)
dyslexics are performing poorly. In a recent
review of 10 studies, Ramus (2003) reports that
on average only 29% of dyslexics have visual
deficits.
Auditory deficits in dyslexia
It has also been suggested that dyslexics have low-
level auditory deficits. This hypothesis was orig-
inally proposed by Tallal (1980), who found that
children with dyslexia were poor at discriminating
and sequencing auditory stimuli that are brief or
rapidly presented.
Since Tallal’s early work, a number of auditory
tasks have been used to demonstrate impaired
performance among dyslexics. Differences between
dyslexics and control readers have been found on
auditory frequency discrimination tasks (Ahissar,
Protopapas, Reid, & Merzenich, 2000; De
Weirdt, 1988; France et al., 2002; Hari, Valta, &
Uutela, 1999; McAnally & Stein, 1996) and fre-
quency modulation detection tasks (Witton,
Stein, Stoodley, Rosner, & Talcott, 2002;
Witton et al., 1998). Also, children with dyslexia
have been found to have elevated thresholds for
backward detection masking (Rosen &
Manganari, 2001; Wright et al., 1997). Further
evidence of an auditory deficit in dyslexia is pro-
vided by studies that have shown that, in compari-
son to controls, dyslexics have abnormal
neurophysiological responses to a variety of audi-
tory stimuli (McAnally & Stein, 1996; Ruff,
Cardebat, Marie, & Demonet, 2002; Temple
et al., 2000).
Aside from the empirical support outlined
above, there have been a number of contradictory
findings. There are studies that have failed to
replicate auditory deficits in dyslexia (Heath,
Hogben, & Clark, 1999; Hill, Bailey, Griffiths,
& Snowling, 1999; McArthur & Hogben, 2001).
Heath et al. (1999) and McArthur and Hogben
(2001) found auditory deficits only in a comorbid
reading- and language-impaired group. This
prompted the suggestion that auditory deficits
may only be found among those dyslexics with
poor oral language skills. Other studies have
failed to find support for the notion of a “rapid”

auditory processing deficit, with dyslexics per-
forming poorly on the auditory temporal order
judgement tasks at long interstimulus intervals
(Marshall, Snowling, & Bailey, 2001; Nittrouer,
1999). In addition, not all dyslexics have auditory
deficits. The group differences found seem to be
due to a subgroup of dyslexics who perform
poorly on the auditory tasks (Rosen &
Manganari, 2001; Tallal, 1980; Witton et al.,
1998; Wright et al., 1997). The incidence of audi-
tory deficits in dyslexia is estimated to be about
40% (Ramus, 2003).
Relationship between visual and auditory processing
Although originally examined as separate deficits
in dyslexia, some researchers now argue that
visual and auditory deficits are part of a more
general magno dysfunction (Stein & Walsh,
1997). This is in line with Stein (1993) who
suggests a multimodal temporal processing
deficit as the basis of dyslexia. Early evidence
that the deficits in the visual and auditory modal-
ities may be related was reported by Galaburda,
Menard, and Rosen (1994) who found magno
abnormalities in the medial geniculate nucleus as
well as in the lateral geniculate nucleus. These
magno cells are thought to be responsible for pro-
cessing temporal information in the visual and
auditory domains. Behavioural evidence for a
general magno deficit is provided by studies that
have shown that visual and auditory deficits co-
occur in some dyslexics (e.g., Cestnick, 2001;
Witton et al., 1998).
Sensory deficits and reading skills
There have been attempts to link the low-level
visual and auditory deficits found in dyslexics to
the presence of subtypes. Considering that dyslexia
is a heterogeneous condition, it is possible that a
particular type of reading difficulty is associated
specifically with a particular sensory deficit. The
most recent and commonly referred to typology
of dyslexia is that of Castles and Coltheart
(1993). They distinguish between difficulties
with phonological skills (the use of grapheme–
phoneme conversion rules to decode words) and
SENSORY PROCESSING IN DEVELOPMENTAL DYSLEXIA
difficulties with orthographic skills (use of word-
specific orthographic features to retrieve a whole
word from the mental lexicon). Hence, researchers
have examined how low-level visual and auditory
processing relates to phonological and ortho-
graphic skills.
Tallal (1980) proposed that the phonological
deficits found in most dyslexics were a conse-
quence of an impairment in temporal auditory
processing. More recently, Witton and colleagues
(1998, 2002) found that auditory processing was
a significant predictor of phonological skills in
both dyslexics and controls. However, some
studies have found that visual processing is
linked to nonword reading ability, which is a
measure of phonological decoding skill (Cestnick
& Coltheart, 1999; Slaghuis, Lovegrove, &
Davidson, 1993; Talcott et al., 1998). There are
also suggestions that visual processing is associated
with orthographic skills (Stein, 2003).
Cornelissen, Hansen, Hutton, Evangelinou, and
Stein (1998) found that thresholds on a coherent
motion detection task correlated with letter
errors on a reading test. These errors are thought
to reflect orthographic skill.
In order to make conclusions about which com-
ponent reading skill relates to which mode of low-
level sensory processing, it is necessary to measure
both visual and auditory processing and phonolo-
gical and orthographic skills in the same individ-
uals. Talcott et al. (2000) was the first study to
do this using a group of children unselected for
their reading ability. They found that visual
motion sensitivity explained independent variance
in orthographic skill, and that auditory sensitivity
covaried with phonological but not orthographic
skill. However, a similar study by Gibson,
Hogben, and Fletcher (2005) found a different
pattern of results. In contrast to Talcott et al.
measures of visual processing were not specifically
related to nonword or irregular-word reading.
However, measures of auditory processing were
found to be associated with phonological decoding
skills. In a replication of Talcott et al. (2000), using
a larger sample of unselected school children,
Talcott et al. (2002) found smaller and less specific
relationships between visual and auditory
COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2006, 23 (4) 623
GIBSON, HOGBEN, FLETCHER
processing and component reading skills. The
relationship between visual and auditory proces-
sing and component reading skills needs to be
further examined in a sample of dyslexic children.
It is recognized widely that dyslexia is a hetero-
geneous condition. However, it is unclear
whether the different types of dyslexia are associ-
ated specifically with a particular sensory deficit.
This may also explain some of the inconsistencies
in the research in relation to visual and auditory
deficits among dyslexics.
THE PRESENT STUDY
The first aim of the present study was to examine
the underlying basis of developmental dyslexia.
Previous research has suggested that dyslexics
have deficits in low-level visual and auditory
tasks. However, it remains unclear the extent to
which dyslexia is characterized by core deficits in
visual and auditory processing. While the majority
of studies examine these issues at a group level, we
contend that it is important to look at individual
differences in relation to performance on the
visual and auditory tasks. We administered two
measures of visual processing (global dot motion
and flicker contrast sensitivity) and three measures
of auditory processing (frequency discrimination,
frequency modulation detection, and backward
masking).
The second aim of the study was to determine
which type of reading problem (phonological,
orthographic) relates to which mode of sensory
processing (visual, auditory). How visual and audi-
tory processing relate to reading skills remains
unclear and has yet to be addressed adequately in
a sample of dyslexic children and controls. We
administered a battery of reading tasks, including
nonword and irregular-word reading, as measures
of children’s phonological and orthographic skills.
While it is acknowledged that language and
reading impairments are highly comorbid, the
language ability of the dyslexic group is not often
considered, let alone measured, by researchers. In
the present study, we have included a measure of
language ability in order to examine the impact
624 COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2006, 23 (4)
of language ability on any relationship found
between sensory measures and reading ability.
Method
Participants
The dyslexic group consisted of 44 children (29
boys and 15 girls) aged between 8 years 1 month
and 12 years 4 months (mean age 9 years 10
months). Criteria for inclusion in the dyslexic
group were as follows: reading accuracy (as
assessed by the NARA-III: Neale Analysis of
Reading Ability – Third Edition; Neale, 1999)
more than 18 months behind chronological age,
a performance IQ greater than 85, English as the
first acquired language, normal or corrected-to-
normal vision, normal hearing, and no major
socio-emotional or medical problems. The
reading age of the dyslexic children ranged from
18 to 65 months below their chronological age
(mean ¼ 34.95, SD ¼ 13.09). The children with
dyslexia were recruited through screening at
metropolitan primary schools in Perth, Western
Australia, an advertisement placed in The Parent
Paper, The University of Western Australia
Child Study Centre Clinic, private psychological
clinics, and the Dyslexia-SPELD Foundation.
The control group consisted of 44 children (30
boys and 14 girls) with normal reading development,
aged between 8 years and 12 years 7 months (mean
age 9 years 9 months). Selection was based on the
criteria outlined above, with the exception of
reading accuracy, which had to be equal to or
greater than a child’s chronological age. The
reading age of children in the control group
ranged from 0 to 19 months above chronological
age (mean ¼ 5.77, SD ¼ 4.38). The control children
were recruited through metropolitan primary
schools located in Perth, Western Australia.
The dyslexic and control groups were equated
for age and performance IQ (see Table 1).
Materials
Background questionnaire. The background ques-
tionnaire was adapted from a previous question-
naire used in the Perception Laboratory at The
University of Western Australia. It was used to
 SENSORY PROCESSING IN DEVELOPMENTAL DYSLEXIA

Table 1. Characteristics of the age-matched groups on the selection criteria

Measure Group M (SD) Min–Max t

Chronological agea Dyslexic 118.9 (13.2) 97–148 20.56

Control 117.3 (12.8) 96–151
NARA-III accuracya Dyslexic 87.4 (11.3) 72–124 13.06
Control 123.3 (14.4) 102–157
NARA-III comprehensiona Dyslexic 94.6 (17.1) 72–151 9.85
Control 127.9 (14.5) 107–156
Verbal IQb Dyslexic 100.2 (11.0) 76–131 1.66
Control 104.5 (13.0) 86–141
Performance IQb Dyslexic 106.1 (11.3) 89–131 0.70
Control 108.2 (15.6) 85–152
Full-scale IQb Dyslexic 103.6 (9.6) 84–124 1.28
Control 107.6 (15.2) 84–151

Note: NARA-III ¼ Neale Analysis of Reading Ability–Third Edition; IQ ¼ Intelligence Quotient (from the Wechsler Abbreviated
Scale of Intelligence); SRD ¼ Specific Reading Disability; Con ¼ Control; Min ¼ minimum score; Max ¼ maximum score.
a
In months. bStandard score.

p ,.01.

obtain information from parents in the following
areas: pregnancy, birth, and infancy; medical
history (illnesses, operations, medical conditions,
medication, vision, audition, language); education
(language ability, reading ability, mathematical
ability, behaviour, psychological assessment); and
family background.
Psychometric tests.
Neale Analysis of Reading Ability—Third
Edition (NARA-III; Neale, 1999). Reading
ability was assessed using the accuracy subtest of
the NARA-III. The NARA-III is an Australian
standardized test, which contains norms for chil-
dren aged between 6 years 0 months and 11
years 11 months. It consists of six graded reading
passages for measuring rate, accuracy, and compre-
hension of oral reading.
Castles Word/Nonword Tests (Coltheart &
Leahy, 1996). This test contains 90 items, includ-
ing 30 pronounceable nonwords (e.g., rint,
bleaner), 30 irregular words (e.g., yacht, island),
and 30 regular words (e.g., market, brandy). The
irregular-word list is designed to assess ortho-
graphic decoding skills, and the nonword list is
designed to assess phonological decoding skills.
In construction of the test, the regular words
were included to enable comparison with the irre-
gular words (see Coltheart & Leahy, 1996, for the
word lists and details on test administration).
Accuracy scores were converted to standard z
scores using the normative data for Australian
school children compiled by Edwards and
Hogben (1999).
Each item was presented singly on index cards
in a mixed order. There was no feedback after
each response, and no time limits were enforced.
Total number correct (out of 30) for regular-
word, irregular-word, and nonword reading was
calculated for each child.
Test of Word-Reading Efficiency (TOWRE;
Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1999). The
TOWRE assesses an individual’s ability to accu-
rately and fluently pronounce printed words. The
TOWRE consists of two subtests—sight word
efficiency and phonemic decoding efficiency—
each of which yields a standard score. The sight
word efficiency subtest assesses the number of
real words that can be accurately identified in 45
seconds. The phonemic decoding subtest assesses
the number of pronounceable nonwords that can
be accurately decoded in 45 seconds. Standard

COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2006, 23 (4) 625

GIBSON, HOGBEN, FLETCHER
scores are given based on the child’s raw score rela-
tive to children of the same age. The standard
scores have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation
of 15.
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing
(CTOPP; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte,
1999). The CTOPP assesses phonological skills
in individuals aged between 7 and 24 years. It con-
tains six core subtests and six supplementary subt-
ests. The CTOPP is based on a model of
phonological processing that views phonological
awareness, phonological memory, and rapid
naming as three separate, though related, abilities.
Three core subtests were administered to all
children in the sample: Elision (saying what is
left of a word after deleting a particular
phoneme); Memory for Digits (repeating a series
of numbers); and Nonword Repetition (repeating
made-up words). One supplementary subtest was
also administered: Phoneme Reversal (saying non-
words backwards to form real words). A standard
score is derived for each subtest—the subtest stan-
dard scores have a mean 10 and a standard devi-
ation of 3.
Visual Orthographic Task (Martin, Pratt, &
Fraser, 2000). The grapheme deletion task was
used to measure a child’s ability to access and use
an orthographic, or letter-based, strategy.
Children were asked to delete a letter from a
known word, whereby the pronunciation is based
on the remaining spelling when a specified letter
is deleted (e.g., snow with the letter “s” removed).
Each word was presented in 24-point Times
New Roman black font on white (5  10-cm)
cards. The experimenter did not speak the visually
presented words. There were four practice items,
for which feedback was provided, followed by 28
experimental items where no feedback was given.
Participants responded orally, and responses
were recorded on paper. Responses were classified
as correct (accurate according to the instructions
given), crossed (a phonological response was
given when an orthographic response was
required), or incorrect (neither an orthographic
nor a phonological response to the target word).
626 COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2006, 23 (4)
Auditory Phonological Task (Martin et al.,
2000). The phoneme deletion task was used to
measure a child’s ability to access and use a phono-
logical, or sound-based, strategy. Children were
asked to delete a sound from a known word,
whereby the pronunciation is based on the remain-
ing sounds when a specified sound is deleted (e.g.,
snow with the sound/s/removed). There were four
practice items, for which feedback was provided,
followed by 28 experimental items where no feed-
back was given.
Participants responded orally, and responses
were recorded on paper. Responses were classified
as correct (accurate according to the instructions
given), crossed (an orthographic response was
given when a phonological response was required),
or incorrect (neither a phonological nor an ortho-
graphic response to the target word).
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals –
Third Edition (CELF-III; Semel, Wiig, &
Secord, 1995). The CELF-III is a battery of six
subtests used for assessing language skills in
school age children. The subtests measure syntax,
semantics, and memory and are grouped according
to the basic distinction between expressive and
receptive language abilities. This test yields an
expressive language ability score, a receptive
language ability score, and a composite total
language score. Two expressive subtests were
administered (Recalling Sentences and Sentence
Assembly) for which a prorated expressive
language ability score was calculated, and two
receptive subtests were used (Word Classes and
Semantic Relationships) for which a prorated
receptive language ability score was calculated.
Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence
(WASI; Wechsler, 1999). Intelligence was
measured using the WASI. The WASI consists
of four subtests: vocabulary, block design, simi-
larities, and matrix reasoning. The vocabulary
and similarities subtests comprise the Verbal
scale and are used to obtain the Verbal IQ. The
block design and the matrix reasoning subtests
comprise the Performance scale and are used to
obtain the Performance IQ. This test yields a

Performance, Verbal, and Full-scale IQ score, each
with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.
Psychophysical tasks. All threshold estimates were
obtained using an objective response mode (two-
alternative forced-choice), and a PEST procedure
(Taylor & Creelman, 1967) was used to calculate
75% correct performance level. The threshold
was calculated as the mean of all presentations fol-
lowing the fourth reversal. For each psychophysi-
cal task participants received 10 practice trials
followed by two blocks of 60 experimental trials.
Visual psychophysical tasks. The stimuli for the two
visual tasks were presented on a Sony Trinitron
GDM-20SEI monitor controlled by a
Cambridge Research Systems VSG2/3. The screen
was viewed binocularly in a darkened room.
Global Dot Motion (GDM). The global dot
motion stimulus was similar to that of Edwards
and Badcock (1996). It consisted of 100 dots
each subtending 0.11 degrees. The dots were dis-
tributed randomly across the screen. However, to
ensure that the dots would not overlap, proximity
restrictions were imposed. There were 20 frames
each displayed for 30 ms, which resulted in a
total duration of 600 ms for each trial.
To eliminate local cues to the direction of
motion, the coherently moving dots were chosen
randomly on each frame instead of having the
same dots moving coherently across all 20
frames. The remaining dots moved in a random
direction, excluding the coherent motion direc-
tion. The coherence of the first presentation was
20%—that is, 20 dots were moving in the same
direction. The spatial step size was 0.19 degrees,
resulting in a stimulus velocity of 6.33 deg/s.
After each stimulus presentation, participants
were asked to indicate the direction of movement
(up or down) by pressing a corresponding button
on a response box. Feedback was given after each
trial. Thresholds were defined as the proportion
of dots needed to correctly report the direction
of movement on 75% of the trials. A higher
threshold on this task indicates low sensitivity
(poorer performance).
SENSORY PROCESSING IN DEVELOPMENTAL DYSLEXIA
Flicker Contrast Sensitivity (FCS). The flicker
contrast sensitivity task was adapted from Evans,
Drasdo, and Richards (1994). The stimulus
target consisted of a 3.15-deg Gaussian patch pre-
sented in the middle of the screen. The target had
a temporal frequency of 10 Hz and a mean lumi-
nance of 20 cd/m2. The target was surrounded
by a field of matched space-averaged luminance.
Each target was presented randomly, either
before or after another stimulus, which had the
same mean luminance but did not flicker. The
temporal contrast (modulation depth) was varied
to obtain the threshold.
Each trial began with the presentation of a fix-
ation cross indicating where the centre of the
target would appear. Two 1,000-ms intervals
were presented, each signalled by a tone, and
were separated by a screen with a fixation cross.
The target stimulus was randomly presented
during one of the intervals. The children were
asked to indicate, using a button box, which inter-
val (first or second) contained the target.
Thresholds reflected the percentage of contrast
needed to detect flicker. Thresholds for each
participant were transformed to contrast sensitivity
(1,000/threshold).
Auditory psychophysical tasks. Auditory testing was
conducted in an acoustically shielded room. The
stimuli were all digitally generated on a TDT
System II controlled by computer and presented
through Sennheiser HD 265 headphones. All
sounds were presented binaurally. Participants
registered their responses by pressing the appro-
priate buttons on a key pad.
Frequency Discrimination (FD). A task based on
the AXB design described by Mengler, Hogben,
Michie, and Bishop (2005) was used to measure
difference thresholds. Three 100-ms, 83-dB SPL
tones separated by 300 ms were presented. The
first tone (A) was a 1,000-Hz standard, the third
tone (B) was the same frequency plus the current
frequency difference, and the middle tone (X)
matched either the first or the third tone on a
random basis. The initial stimulus difference was
30 Hz with a maximum step size of 8 Hz and a
COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2006, 23 (4) 627
GIBSON, HOGBEN, FLETCHER
minimum step size of 0.1 Hz. The participant’s
task was to indicate whether the middle tone was
the same as the first or last sound.
Frequency Modulation (FM) Detection. FM detec-
tion thresholds were measured in an adaptive
version of the task described by Witton et al.
(1998). In our measure only the modulation
depth was varied, while the rate of modulation
was held constant. Participants were presented
with pairs of 500-ms 72-dB SPL tones separated
by a 500-ms interval. One sound was a pure
1,000-Hz tone; the other target tone was fre-
quency modulated at a rate of 2 Hz. The order
of the two tones was randomly varied from trial
to trial. Initial depth of modulation in the target
tone was 10 Hz, with a maximum step size of 4
Hz and a minimum step size of 0.1 Hz. The par-
ticipant’s task was to indicate whether the modu-
lated tone came first or second.
Backward Masking (BM). This task was modelled
on Wright et al. (1997). In each trial participants
heard two 300-ms bursts of bandpass noise
centred at 1,000 Hz with a bandwidth of 800 Hz
(intermasker interval ¼ 800 ms). One of these
noises was preceded by a 20-ms target tone with
a frequency of 1,000 Hz. The target tone was ran-
domly presented before the first or the second
burst. There was no silent interval between the
tone and the masker. The initial tone intensity
was 70 dB SPL, with a maximum step size of 5
dB and a minimum step size of 1 dB. The partici-
pant was required to indicate whether the target
tone occurred before the first or second noise.
General procedure
Each child was assessed individually across three
sessions by the first author. The first session
lasted approximately 120 minutes and was con-
ducted at the University of Western Australia.
During this session the child completed the
WASI, CTOPP, Castles Word/Nonword Tests,
and the visual and auditory psychophysical tasks.
The following two sessions, which each lasted
approximately 40 minutes, were conducted in a
quiet room within the child’s school or home.
628 COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2006, 23 (4)
During these two sessions the NARA-III,
TOWRE, CELF-III, the auditory phonological
task, and the visual orthographic task were
administered.
Results
Preliminary analyses
Following screening of the data, several data
points for the psychophysical tasks were removed
from analysis. These consisted of erratic and
unstable PEST functions as well as statistically
significant outliers.
Performance on psychometric measures
Summary statistics for the psychometric tests are
presented in Table 2.
Group differences. Independent samples t tests
revealed significant differences between the chil-
dren with dyslexia and controls on all psycho-
metric measures (see Table 2). Compared with
normal readers, children with dyslexia obtained
lower scores on all reading, language, orthographic,
and phonological measures (largest t ¼ 11.40, all
ps , .05). The largest differences were found on
two tasks measuring phonological skills:
TOWRE phonemic decoding efficiency and
Castles nonword reading.
Within-group correlational analyses. All correla-
tional analyses were performed within each
group separately. Table 3 presents the correlations
for the control group, and Table 4 presents the
correlations for the dyslexic group. As has been
found in other studies among dyslexic and
normal readers, we found a strong relationship
between nonword and irregular-word reading for
both the dyslexic group (r ¼ .67) and the control
group (r ¼ .53).
For the dyslexic group, there were strong
relationships between language ability, in particu-
lar expressive language, and reading measures. All
correlations were positive, indicating that poor
language ability is associated with poor reading
skills. Such strong relationships between language
 SENSORY PROCESSING IN DEVELOPMENTAL DYSLEXIA

Table 2. Psychometric tasks: Summary statistics

Measure Group M (SD) Min –Max t

TOWRE sight worda Dyslexic 83.8 (12.7) 55 –110 8.74

Control 106.2 (11.3) 89 –128
TOWRE phonemic decodinga Dyslexic 81.7 (10.6) 61 –106 10.73
Control 105.1 (9.8) 90 –137
TOWRE total word readinga Dyslexic 80.1 (12.2) 59 –110 10.19
Control 106.6 (12.1) 87 –139
CTOPP elisiona Dyslexic 7.5 (2.8) 2 –16 6.08
Control 10.7 (2.0) 7 –15
CTOPP digit spana Dyslexic 9.1 (3.2) 3 –15 2.56
Control 10.5 (1.9) 7 –14
CTOPP nonword repetitiona Dyslexic 7.5 (2.3) 4 –13 2.66
Control 8.7 (1.9) 5 –13
CTOPP phoneme reversala Dyslexic 7.1 (2.3) 4 –12 4.66
Control 9.1 (1.7) 5 –13
Castles nonwords correctb Dyslexic 10.7 (7.0) 0 –25 11.40
Control 24.4 (3.6) 17 –30
Castles irregular words correctb Dyslexic 13.2 (6.4) 0 –24 8.15
Control 22.1 (3.2) 15 –30
Castles regular wordsb Dyslexic 17.7 (7.6) 0 –30 7.96
Control 27.6 (2.8) 20 –30
CELF-III receptive languagea Dyslexic 93.3 (17.3) 53 –131 3.62
Control 105.5 (12.6) 84 –135
CELF-III expressive languagea Dyslexic 87.9 (17.8) 50 –125 3.97
Control 100.6 (9.8) 82 –118
Auditory phonological taskc Dyslexic 12.5 (7.0) 0 –24 6.85
Control 20.8 (2.8) 16 –26
Visual orthographic taskc Dyslexic 14.6 (5.6) 1 –25 6.49
Control 21.3 (3.4) 15 –28
a
Standard score. bOut of 30. cRaw score, out of 28.

p , .05;  p , .01.

ability and the reading measures were not found in
the control group.
Factor analysis. A principal components analysis
with varimax orthogonal rotation was conducted
to examine the relationships between purported
measures of phonological and orthographic skills
used in the present study. Castles nonword and
irregular-word reading z scores, the auditory pho-
nological task, and the visual orthographic task
were entered into the analysis. For the control
group, the analysis revealed one factor with an
eigenvalue greater than 1, which explained 57.4%
of the variance in the data. For the dyslexic group,
the analysis revealed one factor with an eigenvalue
larger than 1, which explained 72.5% of the
variance in the data. The factor loadings for both
the control and dyslexic data are given in Table 5.
For both the dyslexic and control groups, all four
tasks loaded on one factor, suggesting that these
tasks do not represent distinct phonological and
orthographic skills. Hence, a composite measure
of orthographic ability and a composite measure
of phonological ability could not be created.
Language ability. The study confirmed the high
comorbidity of reading and language impairments.
Of the children with dyslexia, 18 performed worse
than 1 standard deviation below the mean of the
control group on the receptive language subtest
of the CELF-III, while 20 performed worse
than 1 standard deviation below the mean of the

COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2006, 23 (4) 629

630
Table 3. Pearson product–moment correlation matrix for the control group

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

2 .61 —
GIBSON, HOGBEN, FLETCHER

3 .02 .18 —
4 .19 .34 .79 —
5 .12 .28 .94 .94 —
6 .28 .51 .33 .34 .37 —
7 2.01 2.12 .22 .07 .16 .24 —
8 .14 .20 2.01 2.06 2.02 .28 .29 —
9 .21 .37 .36 .36 .39 .54 .05 2.02 —
10 .34 .19 .26 .33 .31 .16 .19 2.16 .29 —
11 .22 .37 .38 .37 .40 .24 .20 2.21 .26 .53 —
12 .17 .32 .36 .34 .37 .34 .04 2.16 .31 .56 .66 —

COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2006, 23 (4)

13 .39 .46 .26 .28 .30 .69 .24 .28 .48 .33 .32 .32 —
14 .60 .55 .27 .39 .36 .56 2.11 .13 .46 .39 .38 .44 .73 —
15 .01 .26 .19 .18 .19 .25 2.18 2.11 .53 2.03 .12 .11 .20 .17 —
16 2.27 .02 .18 .18 .18 .21 .04 .06 .12 2.25 .14 .02 .14 .10 .47 —
17 2.28 2.44 .18 2.07 .11 .32 .10 .23 2.18 2.02 2.06 2.02 2.08 2.32 2.20 2.19 —
18 .19 .27 2.02 .07 2.01 .08 .04 .06 .24 .09 .05 .09 2.01 .14 .01 2.02 2.32 —
19 2.15 2.46 2.18 2.24 2.19 2.50 2.07 .01 2.18 2.27 2.38 2.46 2.35 2.38 2.26 2.25 .55 2.02 —
20 2.23 2.17 .32 2.28 2.30 2.01 .19 .23 2.29 2.52 2.34 2.55 2.22 2.37 2.16 2.12 2.12 2.01 .29 —
21 2.19 2.19 2.35 2.21 2.25 2.17 2.15 2.02 2.38 2.29 2.32 2.33 2.26 2.26 2.24 2.14 .01 2.27 .32 .53

Note: 1 ¼ NARA-III accuracy (months); 2 ¼ NARA-III comprehension (months); 3 ¼ TOWRE sight word (standard score); 4 ¼ TOWRE phonemic decoding (standard
score); 5 ¼ TOWRE total word reading (standard score); 6 ¼ CTOPP elision (standard score); 7 ¼ CTOPP digit span (standard score); 8 ¼ CTOPP nonword repetition
(standard score); 9 ¼ CTOPP phoneme reversal (standard score); 10 ¼ Castles nonwords (z score); 11 ¼ Castles irregular words (z score); 12 ¼ Castles regular words
(z score); 13 ¼ Auditory phonological task (raw score, out of 26); 14 ¼ Visual orthographic task (raw score, out of 26); 15 ¼ CELF-III receptive (standard score); 16 ¼
CELF-III expressive (standard score); 17 ¼ Global dot motion (threshold); 18 ¼ Flicker contrast sensitivity; 19 ¼ Frequency discrimination (threshold); 20 ¼
Frequency modulation (threshold); 21 ¼ Backward masking (threshold).

p , .05;  p , .01.
 Table 4. Pearson product moment correlation matrix for the dyslexic group

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

2 .94 —
3 .56 .46 —
4 .42 .34 .70 —
5 .53 .43 .92 .90 —
6 .31 .27 .46 .56 .56 —
7 .30 .32 .18 .31 .24 .21 —
8 .30 .37 .22 .47 .34 .38 .55 —
9 .37 .38 .42 .62 .54 .47 .27 .41 —
10 .54 .53 .49 .66 .63 .41 .34 .42 .65 —
11 .60 .55 .65 .56 .69 .32 .16 .26 .46 .67 —
12 .51 .43 .68 .69 .73 .48 .28 .29 .49 .73 .72 —
13 .62 .67 .41 .51 .51 .29 .34 .49 .68 .62 .60 .58 —
14 .63 .60 .39 .47 .46 .18 .21 .39 .52 .60 .57 .53 .74 —
15 .24 .20 .34 .57 .49 .52 .29 .50 .31 .29 .33 .27 .18 .18 —
16 .45 .49 .41 .48 .46 .45 .54 .61 .47 .49 .31 .29 .36 .36 .66 —
17 2.05 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.02 2.19 .05 2.07 2.15 2.12 2.16 2.12 2.07 2.15 2.19 .07 —
18 .30 .34 2.05 .05 .04 2.10 .14 .32 2.04 .21 .23 .09 .38 .36 2.03 .05 2.18 —
19 2.18 2.11 2.02 2.16 2.12 2.11 2.43 2.29 2.31 2.17 2.14 2.13 2.31 2.20 .10 2.05 2.01 2.17 —
20 2.28 2.21 .26 2.46 2.28 2.34 2.29 .34 2.51 2.26 2.09 .31 2.45 2.40 2.11 2.19 .10 2.08 .39 —
21 2.09 2.01 .05 2.16 2.10 2.15 2.14 2.25 2.21 2.14 .03 2.17 2.12 2.18 2.31 2.22 .32 2.05 .10 .40

Note: 1 ¼ NARA-III accuracy (months); 2 ¼ NARA-III comprehension (months); 3 ¼ TOWRE sight word (standard score); 4 ¼ TOWRE phonemic decoding (standard
score); 5 ¼ TOWRE total word reading (standard score); 6 ¼ CTOPP elision (standard score); 7 ¼ CTOPP digit span (standard score); 8 ¼ CTOPP nonword repetition
(standard score); 9 ¼ CTOPP phoneme reversal (standard score); 10 ¼ Castles nonwords (z score); 11 ¼ Castles irregular words (z score); 12 ¼ Castles regular words
(z score); 13 ¼ Auditory phonological task (raw score, out of 26); 14 ¼ Visual orthographic task (raw score, out of 26); 15 ¼ CELF-III receptive (standard score); 16 ¼
CELF-III expressive (standard score); 17 ¼ Global dot motion (threshold); 18 ¼ Flicker contrast sensitivity; 19 ¼ Frequency discrimination (threshold); 20 ¼
Frequency modulation (threshold); 21 ¼ Backward masking (threshold).

p , .05;  p , .01.

COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2006, 23 (4)

SENSORY PROCESSING IN DEVELOPMENTAL DYSLEXIA

631
GIBSON, HOGBEN, FLETCHER
Table 5. Factor loading from the principal components analysis
(varimax rotation) on nonword reading, irregular-word reading,
the auditory phonological task, and the visual orthographic task for
the control groupa and the dyslexic groupb
Group
c
Castles nonword reading Dyslexic
Control
Castles irregular-word readingc Dyslexic
Control
Auditory phonological task Dyslexic
Control
Visual orthographic task Dyslexic
Control
a
N ¼ 42. bN ¼ 38. cz scores.
control group on the expressive language subtest of
the CELF-III. Using a composite measure of total
language ability, approximately 56% of the dyslexic
sample also had a language impairment (i.e.,
comorbid group).
Classification of dyslexics. Using the criteria1 speci-
fied by Edwards and Hogben (1999), those in
the dyslexic sample were classified according
to their deficient reading procedure. Some 29.5%
of the dyslexics could be classified using this cri-
terion. A total of 7 children demonstrated less pro-
ficiency in orthographic skills than in phonological
skills (surface dyslexic), and 6 children showed the
opposite pattern (phonological dyslexic), while 18
performed poorly on both measures and could be
classified as the “mixed deficit” type (deficient at
both nonword and irregular-word reading). The
remaining 13 dyslexic children could not be classi-
fied according to the Edwards and Hogben criteria
(i.e., these children did not perform more than 1.5
standard deviations below the mean for their age
group on either of the word lists).
Performance on visual tasks
Summary statistics for the visual psychophysical
tasks are presented in Table 6. Reliability coeffi-
cients were calculated for performance on the
1
These are based on a difference between z scores on the irregular-word and nonword reading list equalling or exceeding 0.5
standard deviations when performing below average on at least one of the lists (z  21.64). A negative difference indicates poor
irregular-word reading (i.e., surface dyslexic), while a positive difference indicates poor nonword reading (i.e., phonological dyslexic).
632 COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2006, 23 (4)
GDM and FCS tasks. Test – retest reliability
with Spearman – Brown correction yielded moder-
ate to high coefficients for GDM (controls, r ¼ .81;
dyslexics, r ¼ .71) and FCS (controls, r ¼ .76;
Factor 1 dyslexics, r ¼ .73).
.85
.69 Group differences. Independent samples t tests
.83
.73
revealed that children with dyslexia performed
.87 significantly worse than control children on both
.78 GDM and FCS (see Table 6).
.86
.83
Within-group correlations. Performance on the
GDM task and the FCS task was significantly
correlated in the control group (r ¼ 2.32, p ,
.05), but not in the dyslexic group (r ¼ 2.18,
p . .05). Only 3 children with dyslexia had poor
performances on both GDM and FCS (poor per-
formance was defined as 1 standard deviation
below the mean of the control group).
Relationships with reading skills. The relationships
between the measures of visual processing and
reading ability, as assessed by the Castles Word/
Nonword Lists, were also examined. For both
the control group and the dyslexic group, perform-
ance on the visual processing tasks (GDM and
FCS) is not significantly correlated with
nonword or irregular-word reading.
Subtypes. We also examined the performance of the
children classified as surface and phonological dys-
lexics on the visual processing tasks. While there
was a trend for the surface dyslexic group to have
higher thresholds (M ¼ 28.01) than the phonolo-
gical dyslexic group (M ¼ 18.89) on GDM, this
difference was not significant, t(11) ¼ 1.29, p ¼
.22. On the FCS task, the trend was for the
surface dyslexic group to perform poorly (M ¼
84.79) relative to the phonological dyslexic group
(M ¼ 97.76). However, this difference was not sig-
nificant, t(11) ¼ 0.49, p ¼ .63.
 SENSORY PROCESSING IN DEVELOPMENTAL DYSLEXIA

Table 6. Summary statistics for the psychophysical tasks

Measure Group M (SD) Min– Max t

GDM threshold Dyslexic 22.1 (14.4) 5.2– 63.9 2.67

Control 15.5 (7.0) 4.8– 36.5
FCS Dyslexic 98.5 (45.3) 30.4– 224.2 2.97
Control 132.5 (58.1) 66.7– 333.3
FD threshold Dyslexic 27.1 (12.9) 1.0– 53.6 3.45
Control 18.6 (8.8) 3.6– 41.6
FM detection threshold Dyslexic 13.3 (8.4) 2.5– 33.9 3.66
Control 7.9 (4.3) 1.4– 22.8
BM threshold Dyslexic 53.0 (17.4) 26.6– 87.9 5.24
Control 38.5 (3.4) 32.7– 51.0

p , .01.

Language ability. The relationship between
language ability (as assessed by the CELF-III)
and visual processing was examined using
Pearson product moment correlations. In both
the dyslexic and the control groups, receptive and
expressive language were not related to perform-
ance on GDM and FCS.
Performance on auditory tasks
Table 6 presents the summary statistics for the
auditory psychophysical tasks. Test – retest
reliability with Spearman –Brown correction
revealed moderate to high coefficients for FD
(controls, r ¼ .77; dyslexics, r ¼ .73), FM detec-
tion (controls, r ¼ .75; dyslexics, r ¼ .82), and
BM (controls, r ¼ .78; dyslexics, r ¼ .92).
Group differences. Independent samples t tests
revealed that children with dyslexia performed sig-
nificantly worse than control children on each of
the three auditory processing tasks (largest t ¼
5.24, all ps , .01).
Within-group correlational analyses. The relation-
ships between the three auditory tasks were exam-
ined using Pearson product moment correlations
(Tables 3 and 4). In the dyslexic group, FM detec-
tion was significantly correlated with both FD and
BM, while BM was not significantly correlated
with FD. In the control group, BM was signifi-
cantly correlated with both FD and FM detection,
while FD and FM detection were not significantly
correlated. Only 5 children with dyslexia had poor
performance on all three auditory tasks.
Factor analysis. To further examine the relation-
ships between the auditory tasks, a principal com-
ponents analysis with varimax orthogonal rotation
was conducted for each group on FD, FM
Detection, and BM. For the control group, the
analysis revealed one factor with an eigenvalue
larger than 1.00, which explained 61.3% of
the variance in the data. For the dyslexic group,
the analysis revealed one factor with an eigenvalue
larger than 1.00, which explained 55.2% of the
variance in the data. The rotated factor loadings
for both the dyslexic and control groups are
given in Table 7. While the correlational analysis
does not show a clear pattern of relationships
between the auditory tasks, the PCA reveals that
Table 7. Factor loading from the principal components analysis
(varimax rotation) on the auditory psychophysical tasks for the
control groupa and the dyslexic groupb
Group Factor 1
FD Dyslexic .68
Control .65
FM detection Dyslexic .86
Control .84
BM Dyslexic .67
Control .84
a
N ¼ 37. bN ¼ 34.

COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2006, 23 (4) 633

GIBSON, HOGBEN, FLETCHER
the measures of auditory processing do in fact
represent one ability (i.e., auditory processing).
Relationships with reading skills. The relationships
between the measures of auditory processing and
reading ability, as assessed by the Castles Word/
Nonword Lists, were also examined. In the
control group, all three measures of auditory pro-
cessing were significantly correlated with irregu-
lar-word reading (FM, r ¼ 2.34; FD, r ¼ 2.38;
BM, r ¼ 2.32; all ps , .05). Due to the strong
relationship between nonword and irregular-
word reading, semipartial correlations were con-
ducted to look specifically at the relationship
between the auditory tasks and irregular-word
reading. Using this procedure, the correlations
between the three auditory tasks and irregular-
word reading were not significant. On the other
hand, FM detection was significantly correlated
with nonword reading (r ¼ 2.52, p ¼ .01).
When a semipartial correlation was calculated,
the correlation between FM detection and
nonword reading remained significant (r ¼ 2.32,
p ¼ .017, two-tailed). FM detection accounted
for approximately 10% of additional variance in
nonword reading after controlling for irregular-
word reading and age.
In the dyslexic group, there were no significant
correlations between the auditory tasks (FD, FM
detection, BM) and irregular-word reading.
However, semipartial correlations revealed a sig-
nificant (although weak) correlation between FD
and nonword reading (r ¼ 2.26, p ¼ .04, two-
tailed). FD accounted for a significant 6% of
additional variance in nonword reading after
controlling for irregular-word reading and age.
Subtypes. We also examined the performance of
the children classified as surface and phonological
dyslexics on the auditory processing tasks. For FD,
the phonological dyslexic group had a higher mean
threshold (M ¼ 32.48) than the surface dyslexic
(M ¼ 23.82), but this difference was not signifi-
cant, t(11) ¼ 1.23, p ¼ .25. On FM Detection,
the phonological dyslexic group had a higher
mean threshold (M ¼ 15.99) than the surface dys-
lexic (M ¼ 10.75), but this difference was not
634 COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2006, 23 (4)
significant, t(9) ¼ 1.19, p ¼ .26. On BM, the pho-
nological dyslexic group also had a higher mean
threshold (M ¼ 52.18) than the surface dyslexic
(M ¼ 45.02), but this difference was not signifi-
cant, t(11) ¼ 0.97, p ¼ .35.
Language ability. The CELF-III was used as a
measure of oral language to examine the sugges-
tion that auditory deficits may be found only in
those dyslexics who also have a language deficit.
Receptive and expressive language was not signifi-
cantly related to performance on the auditory tasks
in either the dyslexics or the controls.
Relationships between visual and auditory tasks
The relationships between measures of visual and
auditory processing were also examined (see
Tables 3 and 4). For the control group, the only
significant correlation was between GDM and
FD (r ¼ .55, p , .01), indicating that higher
thresholds on GDM are associated with higher
FD thresholds. For the dyslexic group, there
were no significant correlations between the
visual and auditory tasks, indicating that the
visual and auditory tasks share little or no
common variance.
To clarify the relationships between these
variables, a principal components analysis with
varimax orthogonal rotation was conducted for
each group on the two visual processing tasks
(GDM, FCS) and the three auditory processing
tasks (FD, FM Detection, BM). For the control
group, the analysis revealed two factors with an
eigenvalue larger than 1.00, which explained
67.7% of the variance in the data. The rotated
factor loadings are given in Table 8. FD, FM
Detection, and BM loaded on Factor 1, which cor-
responds to auditory processing ability. GDM and
FCS loaded on Factor 2, which represents visual
processing ability.
A different pattern of results was found for the
dyslexic group. The analysis revealed three factors
with an eigenvalue larger than 1.00, which
explained 80.2% of the variance in the data. The
rotated factor loadings are given in Table 9.
GDM and BM loaded on Factor 1, FD and FM
Detection loaded on Factor 2, and FCS loaded
 SENSORY PROCESSING IN DEVELOPMENTAL DYSLEXIA

Table 8. Factor loading from the principal components analysis Examining performance on the auditory tasks,
(varimax rotation) on GDM, FCS, FD, FM detection, and BM the percentage of children with dyslexia who fell
for the control groupa
at least 1 standard deviation above the mean of
Factor 1 Factor 2 the control group was 43.2% (19/44) for both
FD and FM detection and 56.8% (25/44) for BM.
GDM –.03 .89
FCS –.08 –.68
FD .67 .39
FM Detection .89 –.14 Discussion
BM .83 .13
The aims of this study were: (a) to investigate the
a
N ¼ 36. underlying basis of dyslexia by examining the

Factor loadings . .4. existence of a visual and/or auditory deficit in chil-
dren with dyslexia; and (b) to examine how visual
on Factor 3. The factor structure produced by the and auditory processing relate to two component
PCA was unclear; therefore, a second PCA was reading skills—orthographic and phonological
conducted specifying a two-factor solution. decoding.
However, the factor structure produced by a
two-factor solution was also unclear and difficult Psychophysical tasks
to interpret. Group comparisons.
Visual. As a group children with dyslexia per-
Universality formed poorly on both visual processing tasks.
To assess the universality of visual and auditory These findings are consistent with other studies
deficits in dyslexia, we examined the percentage that have also demonstrated poor performance
of children with dyslexia whose scores fell more on GDM (e.g., Slaghuis & Ryan, 1999; Talcott
than 1 standard deviation from the mean of the et al., 1998) and FCS (e.g., Martin &
control group on each of the measures. If visual Lovegrove, 1987, 1988) among individuals with
and auditory deficits do cause dyslexia, it should dyslexia. However, a closer examination of the
be a universal finding, or near universal, in the results reveals that only 31.8% of children with
sample of children with dyslexia. dyslexia scored at least 1 standard deviation
For the visual processing tasks, we found that above the mean of the control group on GDM
31.8% (14/44) of the dyslexic children performed and 43.2% on FCS (remembering that 16% of
worse than 1 standard deviation above the control the control group falls below this level). These
mean on the GDM task, whilst deficits on the percentages support the report by Ramus (2003)
FCS task were present in 43.2% (19/44) of the that on average 29% dyslexia participants exhibit
children with dyslexia. deficits on measures of visual processing. These
results indicate that difficulties with visual proces-
Table 9. Factor loading from the principal components analysis sing do exist in a proportion of children with dys-
(varimax rotation) on GDM, FCS, FD, FM detection, and BM
lexia, but that not all individuals with dyslexia
for the dyslexic groupa
exhibit visual processing problems.
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

GDM .85a
2.07 2.29 Auditory. As a group children with dyslexia per-
FCS 2.08 2.04 .95 formed worse than control children on all auditory
FD 2.16 .81 2.27 tasks. This finding is consistent with previous
FM Detection .45 .79 .21 studies (e.g., De Weirdt, 1988; Witton et al.,
BM .87 .13 .15
1998), which have found auditory deficits among
a
N ¼ 30. both children and adults with dyslexia. In line

Factor loadings . .4. with estimates from previous studies, auditory

COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2006, 23 (4) 635

GIBSON, HOGBEN, FLETCHER
deficits were present in approximately half of the
children with dyslexia, suggesting that decreased
sensitivity to auditory stimuli is not universal in
dyslexia. These results are consistent with other
studies that report that the group differences on
auditory tasks are due to a subgroup of dyslexics
who perform poorly (Rosen & Manganari, 2001;
Tallal, 1980; Witton et al., 1998; Wright et al.,
1997).
Relationship between visual and auditory tasks. We
also examined the extent to which visual and audi-
tory processing tasks are related. In the dyslexic
group, the measures of visual and auditory proces-
sing shared little variance. In the control group,
the only significantly correlation was between
GDM and FD. These results conflict with other
studies that report significant correlations
between visual and auditory tasks. For example,
Witton et al. (1998) found that FM and a coherent
dot motion task were strongly correlated (r ¼ .54)
across the dyslexic and control groups, while
others such as Talcott et al. (2000) report a mod-
erate correlation between FM detection and a
coherent motion task (r ¼ .39) in children unse-
lected for reading. It is unlikely that our choice
of visual and auditory tasks is behind the lack of
interrelations, particularly given the group differ-
ences on each of the tasks.
The results of the factor analysis revealed an
interesting pattern of results. For the control
group, the visual and auditory tasks loaded on
two factors representing visual and auditory pro-
cessing. However, for the dyslexic group, we
were unable to obtain a clear factor structure in
either a three- or a two-factor solution. While
there was a tidy pattern of results in the control
group, there was no pattern to the performance
of the dyslexic group on the visual and auditory
psychophysical tasks. The performance of the dys-
lexic group was less cohesive than the control
group and did not seem to be driven by an under-
lying construct. A possible explanation for the lack
of relationships between the visual and auditory
tasks is discussed below.
The visual and auditory tasks used in the
present study are discussed in the literature under
636 COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2006, 23 (4)
the banner “temporal processing”, which assumes
that there is a common temporal feature to the
tasks. However, the present study indicates that
performance on the visual and auditory tasks was
not driven by a unitary temporal processing
ability/deficit. This is contrary to claims of some
researchers who view visual and auditory deficits
as part of a more general temporal deficit in dys-
lexia (i.e., multimodal temporal deficit; Stein,
1993). While there are claims that there is a
general magno deficit in dyslexia, few studies
have examined the relationship between visual
and auditory processing in dyslexic children
using more than one measure of each domain.
Visual and auditory tasks and reading skills
The results from the current investigation revealed
that auditory processing (FD and FM detection)
was specifically related to phonological decoding
in both dyslexics and controls. This finding is
consistent with research from dyslexia (Talcott
et al., 1998; Witton et al., 2002) and typical devel-
opment (Gibson et al., 2005; Talcott et al., 2000),
which have provided evidence for a link between
auditory processing and phonological skills.
This association between auditory processing
and phonological skills across the whole range of
reading abilities suggests that auditory processing
may play a role in the development of phonological
skills. Considering that the auditory system is a
major source of input to the phonological
system, it is possible that impaired auditory sensi-
tivity constrains accurate speech perception and, as
a result, interferes with the development of phono-
logical representations that may impede reading
acquisition (Bailey & Snowling, 2002).
While the present study provides evidence of a
link between auditory processing and phonological
skills, it is important to note that it is correlational
and does not prove a causal relationship between
these variables. Tallal maintains that the phonolo-
gical deficits in dyslexia are a consequence of an
impairment in auditory processing (Tallal,
Miller, Jenkins, & Merzenich, 1997). However,
it is unlikely that the poor phonological skills of
our dyslexic sample are caused by an impairment
in auditory processing. The association that we

found between performance on the auditory tasks
and nonword reading was quite weak. For the
dyslexic group, the auditory tasks accounted for
approximately 6% of the variance in nonword
reading ability. Furthermore, not all the dyslexics
with poor phonological skills displayed deficits
on the auditory tasks. Studies that have examined
the nature of the relationship between auditory
processing and phonological skills show that audi-
tory skills do not predict phonological skills
(Marshall et al., 2001; Mody, Studdert-Kennedy,
& Brady, 1997).
In terms of visual processing, we found that in
both dyslexics and control readers FCS and GDM
were not related to component reading skills. This
supports the findings of Gibson et al. (2005) who
found that visual processing was not specifically
related to phonological or orthographic skills in a
sample of children unselected for their reading
ability. There has been much debate as to
whether visual magno functioning is related to
reading skills, which has been fuelled by a
number of inconsistent findings. There are
studies that have found that visual processing is
related to phonological skills (Cestnick &
Coltheart, 1999; Slaghuis et al., 1993) and also
studies that have found relationships between
visual processing and orthographic skills in unse-
lected readers (Talcott et al., 2000) and dyslexics
(Stein, 2003).
Previous findings of an association between
visual processing and reading skills have led some
researchers to argue that visual deficits are causally
related to reading (Stein & Walsh, 1997), or alter-
natively that they are markers (i.e., associated with
reading deficit, but not causally related; Frith &
Frith, 1996; Vellutino, Scanlon, & Tanzman,
2003). However, the lack of consistency in
finding relationships between visual processing
and reading skills has led some researchers to
argue that visual processing deficits may be unre-
lated to reading (Hulme, 1988). The results of
the present study are consistent with the latter
view that visual magno functioning is not directly
related to reading skills.
It is worth noting that there are a number of
difficulties in examining the relationships
SENSORY PROCESSING IN DEVELOPMENTAL DYSLEXIA
between sensory processing and reading skills.
First, measures of component reading skills are
highly correlated in dyslexics, controls, and unse-
lected readers. There are several ways in which
researchers have attempted to account for this
relationship. Talcott et al. (2000), in examining
the relationship between sensory measures and
component reading skills, performed partial corre-
lations to remove the effects of overall reading
ability (as measured by the British Abilities
Scale). It is arguable that this resulted in the
removal of the components of the orthographic
and phonological tasks that are related to
reading, which makes it difficult to interpret the
relationships found. An alternative approach,
used in the present study, is to conduct semipartial
correlations to account for the common variance
between orthographic and phonological measures.
Hence, the way in which the analysis is conducted
may be a possible reason for the contradictory
findings in the research.
Secondly, measures of orthographic skills tend
to vary across studies. There are a variety of tasks
used to measure word-specific orthographic skills
including orthographic choice, homophone
choice, orthographic verification, homophone
verification, nonlexical choice, irregular-word
reading, and irregular-word spelling (Castles &
Coltheart, 1993; Olson, Forsberg, Wise, & Rack,
1994). Precisely what these tasks are measuring
and whether they are measuring the same con-
struct are yet to be established. This makes it dif-
ficult to draw comparisons across studies that have
used different measures of orthographic skills. For
example, the present study and Gibson et al.
(2005) used irregular-word reading and found
that visual processing was not specifically related
to orthographic skills. Talcott et al. (2000) used
an orthographic choice task and found an associ-
ation between this measure and visual processing.
While intended as a measure of orthographic
skills, the orthographic choice task also taps
metalinguistic knowledge. A correct response
requires an awareness that words that sound
the same may be spelled differently and mean
different things. Also, on the orthographic
choice task a measure of latency is taken, unlike
COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2006, 23 (4) 637
GIBSON, HOGBEN, FLETCHER
irregular-word reading, which is an untimed test.
The differences in the type of orthographic task
used may also contribute to the inconsistencies
across research studies.
What do our findings mean for visual and
auditory deficit theories?
At the group level, children with dyslexia do
poorly on visual and auditory tasks, compared
with typically developing peers of similar age,
gender, and nonverbal ability. However, at the
individual level there is considerable overlap
between the groups, with only a subset of dyslexics
displaying visual and auditory deficits. Attempts to
identify characteristics of those dyslexics perform-
ing poorly on the sensory tasks have been unsuc-
cessful. Differences in reading difficulties and
language skills are unable to explain the variability
in performance on the psychophysical tasks among
the dyslexic group.
In dyslexic research, group differences between
dyslexics and controls on visual and auditory psy-
chophysical tasks are frequently viewed as evidence
for specific sensory impairments in dyslexia.
Roach, Edwards, and Hogben (2004) offer an
alternative explanation. They suggest that the
common pattern of results might reflect general
nonsensory difficulties in the dyslexic group
rather an underlying impairment in perceptual
processing. They simulated the effect of errant
trials, defined as “a trial on which any nonpercep-
tual factor, such as momentary inattention, dis-
traction, or confusion prevents the observer from
responding as accurately as predicted from his or
her psychometric function” (p. 819) on perform-
ance on psychophysical tasks. They found that
this simulation produced threshold distributions
similar to the pattern of results frequently seen in
dyslexic groups. The results of the simulation
suggest that general nonsensory difficulties may
explain the poor performance of dyslexics groups
on psychophysical tasks.
There are several features of the present data
that support Roach et al.’s (2004) explanation.
There is a big mismatch of variability between
the dyslexic and control groups. For all five
638 COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2006, 23 (4)
psychophysical tasks, the distribution of scores is
more variable in the dyslexic group than in the
control group. On each of the psychophysical
tasks only a proportion of dyslexics perform
poorly resulting in an extended tail of the distri-
bution. In turn, this contributes to the group
differences by inflating the mean threshold for
the dyslexic group.
Furthermore, if poor performance was due to
underlying sensory deficiencies, we would expect
the same individuals to be performing poorly on
more than one task. When examining the data at
an individual level, only one dyslexic performed
poorly on all the visual and auditory psychophysi-
cal tasks, while seven children with dyslexia per-
formed poorly on four out of the five of the
psychophysical tasks. In examining the tasks on
which individuals have deficits, there does not
seem to be a particular combination or set of
tasks that people are poor at (i.e., no pattern to
the deficits). This is supported by the results of
the factor analysis conducted on the psychophysi-
cal tasks. While there is a tidy pattern of results in
the controls, performance on the psychophysical
tasks is less cohesive for the dyslexic group (see
Tables 8 and 9). Hence, it is possible that what
we are finding is evidence to support a more
general nonsensory problem with task completion,
rather than a specific perceptual deficiency in
dyslexia.
There have been more recent studies that have
reported evidence for nonspecific deficits in dys-
lexics. The majority of these studies report find-
ings that are inconsistent with the predictions of
the magno theory. Amitay et al. (2002) found
that, while some dyslexics had deficits on visual
and auditory magno tasks, these individuals were
also impaired on a broad range of perceptual
tasks that did not assess the magno functioning.
In a review of the literature, Skottun (2000)
demonstrated that dyslexics have been found to
perform poorly at all spatial frequencies, not just
low spatial frequencies where the magno system
is dominant. According to the auditory deficit
theory, dyslexics should perform poorly when
auditory stimuli are brief or rapidly presented.
However, some dyslexics perform in the normal

range when sound frequencies change rapidly and
poorly on tasks with long interstimulus intervals
(Marshall et al., 2001; Nittrouer, 1999; Rosen &
Manganari, 2001).
In combination, it appears that the majority of
dyslexics do not have specific visual and auditory
deficits. A general nonsensory problem with task
completion seems a plausible explanation for the
pattern of the data found in the present study.
This highlights the importance of examining the
patterns of performance within a group of dys-
lexics. Simply to focus on a group comparison
design must lead to misleading results.
CONCLUSION
The results of the present study suggest that dys-
lexia is not characterized by core deficits in visual
and auditory processing. Visual and auditory defi-
cits occur in a minority of dyslexics. While we
found group differences between dyslexics and
controls on the visual and auditory tasks, it does
not necessarily reflect an underlying sensory
deficiency in dyslexics. As put forward by Roach
et al. (2004), the pattern of results may reflect a
general nonsensory problem with task completion.
More generally, visual processing was not related
to either orthographic or phonological decoding
skills. On the other hand, weak associations were
found between auditory processing and phonolo-
gical decoding skills.
Manuscript received 16 November 2004
Revised manuscript received 17 August 2005
Revised manuscript accepted 4 October 2005
PrEview proof published online 24 February 2006
REFERENCES
Ahissar, M., Protopapas, A., Reid, M., &
Merzenich, M. M. (2000). Auditory processing par-
allels reading abilities in adults. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 97, 6832– 6837.
Amitay, S., Ben-Yehudah, G., Banai, K., & Ahissar, M.
(2002). Disabled readers suffer from visual and
SENSORY PROCESSING IN DEVELOPMENTAL DYSLEXIA
auditory impairments but not from a specific magno-
cellular deficit. Brain, 125, 2272– 2285.
Bailey, P. J., & Snowling, M. J. (2002). Auditory proces-
sing and the development of language and literacy.
British Medical Bulletin, 63, 135– 146.
Castles, A., & Coltheart, M. (1993). Varieties of devel-
opmental dyslexia. Cognition, 47, 149– 180.
Cestnick, L. (2001). Cross modality temporal proces-
sing deficits in developmental phonological dyslexics.
Brain & Cognition, 46, 319– 325.
Cestnick, L., & Coltheart, M. (1999). The relationship
between language processing and visual processing
deficits in developmental dyslexia. Cognition, 71,
231– 255.
Coltheart, M., & Leahy, J. (1996). Assessment of lexical
and nonlexical reading abilities in children: Some
normative data. Australian Journal of Psychology, 48,
136– 140.
Cornelissen, P. L., Hansen, P. C., Hutton, J. L.,
Evangelinou, V., & Stein, J. F. (1998).
Magnocellular visual function and children’s single
word reading. Vision Research, 38, 471– 482.
Cornelissen, P. L., Richardson, A., Mason, A., Fowler, S.,
& Stein, J. (1995). Contrast sensitivity and coherent
motion detection measured at photopic luminance
levels in dyslexics and controls. Vision Research, 35,
1483– 1494.
De Weirdt, W. (1988). Speech perception and fre-
quency discrimination in good and poor readers.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 9, 163– 183.
Eden, G. F., VanMeter, J. W., Rumsey, J. M.,
Maisog, J. M., Woods, R. P., & Zeffiro, T. A.
(1996). Abnormal processing of visual motion in
dyslexia revealed by functional brain imaging.
Nature, 382, 66 – 69.
Edwards, M., & Badcock, D. R. (1996). Global-motion
perception: Interaction of chromatic and luminance
signals. Vision Research, 36, 2423– 2431.
Edwards, V. T., & Hogben, J. H. (1999). New norms
for comparing children’s lexical and nonlexical
reading: A further look at subtyping dyslexia.
Australian Journal of Psychology, 51, 37 –49.
Evans, B. J. W., Drasdo, N., & Richards, I. L. (1994).
An investigation of some sensory and refractive
visual factors in dyslexia. Vision Research, 34, 1913–
1926.
France, S. J., Rosner, B. S., Hanse, P. C., Calvin, C.,
Talcott, J. B., Richardson, A. J. et al. (2002).
Auditory frequency discrimination in adult develop-
mental dyslexics. Perception & Psychophysics, 64,
169– 179.
COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2006, 23 (4) 639
GIBSON, HOGBEN, FLETCHER
Frith, C., & Frith, U. (1996). A biological marker for
dyslexia. Nature, 382, 19 – 20.
Galaburda, A, M., Menard, M, T., & Rosen, G. D.
(1994). Evidence for aberrant auditory anatomy in
developmental dyslexia. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 91, 8010– 8013.
Gibson, L. Y., Hogben, J. H., & Fletcher, J. (2005).
Visual and auditory processing and component
reading skills in developing readers. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Hari, R., Valta, M., & Uutela, K. (1999). Prolonged
attentional dwell time in dyslexic adults.
Neuroscience Letters, 271, 202– 204.
Heath, S. M., Hogben, J. H., & Clark, C. D. (1999).
Auditory temporal processing in disabled readers
with and without oral language delay. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 637–647.
Hill, N. I., Bailey, P. J., Griffiths, Y. M., & Snowling,
M. J. (1999). Frequency acuity and binaural
masking release in dyslexic listeners. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 106(6), L53– L58.
Hulme, C. (1988). The implausibility of low-level visual
deficits as a cause of children’s reading difficulties.
Cognitive Neuropsychology, 5, 369– 374.
Johannes, S., Kussmaul, C. L., Munte, T. F., &
Mangun, G. R. (1996). Developmental dyslexia:
Passive visual stimulation provides no evidence for
a magnocellular processing deficit. Neuropsychologia,
34, 1123– 1127.
Livingstone, M. S., & Hubel, D. (1988). Segregation
of form, color, movement, and depth: Anatomy,
physiology, and perception. Science, 240,
740– 749.
Livingstone, M. S., Rosen, G. D., Drislane, F. W., &
Galaburda, A. M. (1991). Physiological evidence
for a magnocellular deficit in developmental dyslexia.
Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences, 88,
7943– 7947.
Lovegrove, W., Martin, F., & Slaghuis, W. (1986). A
theoretical and experimental case for a visual deficit
in specific reading disability. Cognitive
Neuropsychology, 3, 225– 267.
Marshall, C. M., Snowling, M. J., & Bailey, P. J. (2001).
Rapid auditory processing and phonological ability
in normal readers and readers with dyslexia. Journal
of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 44,
925– 940.
Martin, F., & Lovegrove, W. J. (1984). The effects of
field size and luminance on contrast sensitivity differ-
ences between specifically reading disabled and
normal children. Neuropsychologia, 22, 73 – 77.
640 COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2006, 23 (4)
Martin, F., & Lovegrove, W. J. (1987). Flicker contrast
sensitivity in normal and specifically disabled readers.
Perception, 16, 215–221.
Martin, F., & Lovegrove, W. J. (1988). Uniform-field
flicker masking in control and specifically disabled
readers. Perception, 17, 203– 214.
Martin, F., Pratt, C., & Fraser, J. (2000). The use
of orthographic and phonological strategies for
the decoding of words in children with developmen-
tal dyslexia and average readers. Dyslexia, 6,
231– 247.
McAnally, K. I., & Stein, J. F. (1996). Auditory tem-
poral coding in dyslexia. Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London B, 263, 961– 965.
McArthur, G. M., & Hogben, J. H. (2001). Auditory
backward recognition masking in children with a
specific language impairment and children with a
specific reading disability. Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 109, 1092– 1100.
Mengler, E., Hogben, J. H., Michie, P., &
Bishop, D. V. M. (2005). Poor frequency discrimi-
nation is related to oral language disorder in children:
A psychoacoustic study. Dyslexia, 11, 155– 173.
Merigan, W. H., & Maunsell, J. H. R. (1990). Macaque
vision after magnocellular lateral geniculate lesions.
Visual Neuroscience, 5, 347–352.
Mody, M., Studdert-Kennedy, M., & Brady, S. (1997).
Speech perception deficits in poor readers: Auditory
processing or phonological coding? Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 64, 199– 231.
Neale, M. D. (1999). Neale Analysis of Reading Ability
(3rd ed.). Hawthorn, Australia: Australian Council
for Educational Research.
Nittrouer, S. (1999). Do temporal processing
deficits cause phonological processing problems?
Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research,
42, 925– 942.
Olson, R., Forsberg, H., Wise, B., & Rack, J. (1994).
Measurement of word recognition, orthographic
and phonological skills. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.),
Frames of reference for the assessment of learning
disabilities: New views on measurement issues
(pp. 243– 277). Baltimore: Brooks.
Ramus, F. (2003). Developmental dyslexia: Specific
phonological deficit or general sensorimotor dys-
function? Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 13,
212– 218.
Roach, N. W., Edwards, V. T., & Hogben, J. H. (2004).
The tale is in the tail: An alternative hypothesis for
psychophysical performance variability in dyslexia.
Perception, 33, 817–830.

Rosen, S., & Manganari, E. (2001). Is there a
relationship between speech and nonspeech
auditory processing in children with dyslexia?
Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research,
44, 720– 736.
Ruff, S., Cardebat, D., Marie, N., & Demonet, J. F.
(2002). Enhanced response of the left frontal cortex
to slowed down speech in dyslexia: An fMRI study.
Neuroreport, 13, 1285 –1289.
Rutter, M., & Yule, W. (1975). The concept of specific
reading retardation. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 16, 181– 197.
Semel, E., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. (1995)
Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals (3rd
ed.). San Antonio, CA: The Psychological
Corporation.
Skottun, B. C. (2000). On the conflicting support for
the magnocellular-deficit theory of dyslexia. Trends
in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 211– 212.
Slaghuis, W. L., Lovegrove, W. J., & Davidson, J. A.
(1993). Visual and language processing deficits are
concurrent in dyslexics. Cortex, 29, 601– 615.
Slaghuis, W. L., & Ryan, J. F. (1999). Spatio-temporal
contrast sensitivity, coherent motion and visible per-
sistence in developmental dyslexia. Vision Research,
39, 651– 668.
Smith, A. T., Early, F., & Grogan, S. C. (1986). Flicker
masking and developmental dyslexia. Perception, 15,
473– 482.
Snowling, M. (2000). Dyslexia. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Spinelli, D., Angelelli, P., De Luca, M., Di Pace, E.,
Judica, A., & Zoccolotti, P. (1997). Developmental
surface dyslexia is not associated with deficits in the
visual system. Cognitive Neuroscience & (dyslexic): What have we learned in the past four
Neuropsychology, 8, 1807– 1812.
Stein, J. (1993). Dyslexia: Impaired temporal infor-
mation processing? In P. Tallal, A. M. Galaburda,
R. R. Llinas, & C. von Euler (Eds.), Temporal
information processing in the nervous system: Special
reference to dyslexia and dysphasia (pp. 48 – 56).
New York: The New York Academy of Sciences.
Stein, J. (2003). Visual motion sensitivity and reading.
Neuropsychologia, 41, 1785– 1793.
Stein, J. F., & Walsh, V. (1997). To see but not to read;
the magnocellular theory of dyslexia. Trends in
Neurosciences, 20, 147– 152.
Talcott, J. B., Hansen, P. C., Willis-Owen, C.,
McKinnell, I. W., Richardson, A. J., & Stein, J. F.
(1998). Visual magnocellular impairment in adult
developmental dyslexia. Neuroophthalmology, 20,
187– 201.
SENSORY PROCESSING IN DEVELOPMENTAL DYSLEXIA
Talcott, J. B., Witton, C., Hebb, G. S., Stoodley, C. J.,
Westwood, E. A., France, S. J. et al. (2002). On the
relationship between dynamic visual and auditory
processing and literacy skills: Results from a large
primary-school study. Dyslexia, 8, 204– 225.
Talcott, J. B., Witton, C., McLean, M. F., Hansen,
P. C., Rees, A., Green, G. G. R. et al. (2000).
Dynamic sensory sensitivity and children’s word
decoding skills. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, 97, 2952– 2957.
Tallal, P. (1980). Auditory temporal perception,
phonics, and reading disability in children. Brain
and Language, 9, 182– 198.
Tallal, P., Miller, S. L., Jenkins, W. M., &
Merzenich, M. M. (1997). The role of temporal pro-
cessing in language developmental language-based
learning disorders: Research and clinical impli-
cations. In B. A. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of
reading acquisition and dyslexia. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Taylor, M. M., & Creelman, C. D. (1967). PEST:
Efficient estimates on probability functions. Journal
of the Acoustical Society of America, 41, 782– 787.
Temple, E., Poldrack, R. A., Protopapas, A., Nagarajan, S.,
Salz, T., Tallal, P. et al. (2000). Disruption of the
neural response to rapid acoustic stimuli in dyslexia:
Evidence from functional MRI. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 97, 13907– 13912.
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A.
(1999). Test of word reading efficiency. Austin, TX:
Pro-Ed.
Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., &
Scanlon, D. M. (2003). Specific reading disability
decades? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
45, 2 – 40.
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Tanzman, M. S.
(1994). Components of reading ability: Issues and
problems in operationalising word identification,
phonological coding and orthographic coding. In
G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment
of learning disabilities: New views on measurement
issues. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks.
Victor, J. D., Conte, M. M., Burton, L., & Nass, R. D.
(1993). Visual evoked potentials in dyslexics and
normals: Failure to find a difference in transient
or steady-state responses. Visual Neuroscience, 10,
939– 946.
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A.
(1999). Comprehensive test of phonological processing.
Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2006, 23 (4) 641
GIBSON, HOGBEN, FLETCHER
Walther-Müller, P. (1995). Is there a deficit of early
vision in dyslexia? Perception, 24, 919– 936.
Wechsler, D. (1999). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of
Intelligence. New York: The Psychological
Corporation.
Witton, C., Stein, J. F., Stoodley, C. J., Rosner, B. S., &
Talcott, J. B. (2002). Separate influences of acoustic
AM and FM sensitivity on the phonological decod-
ing skills of impaired and normal readers. Journal of
Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 866– 874.
642 COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2006, 23 (4)
Witton, C., Talcott, J. B., Hansen, P. C.,
Richardson, A. J., Griffiths, T. D., Rees, A. et al.
(1998). Sensitivity to dynamic auditory and visual
stimuli predicts nonword reading ability in both dys-
lexic and normal readers. Current Biology, 8, 791–797.
Wright, B. A., Lombardino, L. J., King, W. M.,
Puranik, C. S., Leonard, C. M., &
Merzenich, M. M. (1997). Deficits in auditory and
spectral resolution in language-impaired children.
Nature, 387, 176– 178.