Comparing and Contrasting the Phonological and Cerebellar Theories of Dyslexia
$3.95
medical studies
presentation
published 10/06/2008
review : Completed
level : General public
requested 0 times
By definition, developmental dyslexia is a discrepancy between the reading ability and intelligence in children receiving adequate reading tuition (Ramus et al, 2002). There has been substantial empirical evidence lending support to genetic causes of the condition. It is characterized as chronic, with deficiencies in reading being only one of the symptoms. While there has been progress in dyslexia research, there is still contention on the genetic and cognitive roots of dyslexia (Ramus et al, 2002). There is marked contention on the origins of dyslexia among psychologists. The distinguishing traits of the condition include reading and writing difficulties. It is surmised that it spawns from sensory dysfunctions, and these have been thoroughly backed up by empirical research. However, the definitive cause of the condition is yet to be determined (Coleman, 2002). The disorder has frequently been hypothesized to be the result of various sensory malfunctions.
Table of Contents
- This essay aims to compare the two theories of dyslexia at the biological, cognitive and behavioral levels.
- In addition, at the cognitive level, the phonological deficit theory represents the condition as a deficiency in the coding of data.
- Simos et al (2002) has utilized magnetoencephalography (MEG) to examine 10 pediatric dyslexics and 8 control subjects on a visual reading task
- Still on the biological aspect of the magnocellular theory, Nicolson, Fawcett, & Dean (2001) have found that the issues confronting pediatric dyslexics are not constrained only to reading and spelling difficulties.
- There is also no definitive number as to dyslexics that exhibit motor difficulties, and a number of studies have only found a limited percentage of dyslexics who have exhibited such difficulties
- The lack of agreement on the core features of dyslexia may be one reason for the difficulty in defining inclusion criteria for research and its current variability.
