This study is by my medical school thesis advisor who was ahead of the game when I studied with her in the early ’80’s and now, twenty years later, continues to make groundbreaking contributions in the neural basis of child developmental difficulties. Two Types of Brain Problems Are Found to Cause Dyslexia:
One group appeared to have what the researchers called a ‘predominantly genetic type’ of dyslexia.
These students had gaps in the neural circuitry that the normal readers used for the basic processing of sound and language, but had learned to enlist other parts of the brain to compensate for the difficulty. They still read slowly but can comprehend what they read.
The second group had what the researchers called a ‘more environmentally influenced’ type of dyslexia. Their brains’ system for processing sound and language was intact, but they seemed to rely more on memory than on the linguistic centers of the brain for understanding what they were reading. These students had remained persistently poor readers, scoring poorly on speed as well as comprehension.
The two groups of poor readers were from similar socioeconomic backgrounds and had comparable reading skills when they began school, according to the study, which was published this month in the journal Biological Psychiatry.
But there were two differences: the students who compensated for their problems tended to have higher overall levels of learning abilities, and the students whose problems persisted were twice as likely to attend what the researchers called disadvantaged schools. NY Times
The central, and surprising finding here, is that the neural systems that subsume reading ability are intact in those with the persistently poorest reading performance. This is, essentially, an example of this society’s over-medicalization of social problems, leading to the misdirection of resources. Those with neurally based, probably genetically mediated, dyslexia will recruit compensatory brain circuitry to compensate for the deficits. Their brains will light up differently than a non-dyslexic’s on functional MRI scanning (fMRI) during reading tasks, and they will process more slowly, but they can read and comprehend, probably needing very little intervention. On the other hand, the persistently poor readers (my guess is that these are those most likely to be labelled as “dyslexics” in the classroom) might not properly deserve to be labelled with a medical diagnosis improperly imputing a neurological basis to their difficulties. Their brain lights up the same as a ‘normal’ reader’s on fMRI. They appear to have suffered for the lack of stimulation of their reading skills and the educational resources to compensate for lacking that headstart. The overreliance on memory — in other words, rote processes — is not the pathology, but the attempted compensation. If you lack the skills to figure out a new word, all you can do is try to recognize it from a repertoire of previously memorized ones. Unfortunately, the challenges of anything but simple children’s books swamp the capacity to read by rote.
In essence, most of the weighty reading problems in our society should probably not be called dyslexia in the medical, DSM-IV sense, although I suppose we might return to the literal meaning of the words, “impaired reading,” without implication of neurological deficit attached. While the study is extremely valuable, it is arguably one that points to the obsolescence of its own methods. Instead of throwing diagnostic labels, neurological consultations and fMRIs at these children, we should be throwing early intervention and other educational resources at disadvantaged children in whose social niches reading is undervalued and which are second-tier participants in society because of their seriously limited literacy skills.
Of course, equally or more absurd, even if the implications of Shaywitz’s study are taken to heart, and we stop diagnosing them as “dyslexics”, anyone who can’t attend to and comprehend the information presented to them in school these days for whatever reason gets diagnosed with “attention deficit disorder” instead (or in addition to dyslexia) and has stimulants thrown at them. Don’t get me started commenting on this harebrained craze.
Of course, learning can be neurochemically enhanced (New Scientist), but does that mean it should be?