Explaining the Differences Between the Dyslexic and the Garden-Variety Poor Reader

1988 ◽  
Vol 21 (10) ◽  
pp. 590-604 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith E. Stanovich
Keyword(s):  
Poor Reader ◽  
Garden Variety

A Different Method for the Poor Reader

1954 ◽  
Vol 137 (2) ◽  
pp. 2-6
Author(s):  
E. W. Dolch
Keyword(s):  
Poor Reader ◽  
The Poor

scholarly journals An unusual neurological complication from a garden‐variety organism: post‐melioidosis parkinsonism

2015 ◽  
Vol 202 (6) ◽  
pp. 333-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Choon Seong Ng ◽  
Shahrul Azmin ◽  
Zhe Kang Law ◽  
Ramesh Sahathevan ◽  
Wan Nur Nafisah Wan Yahya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Neurological Complication ◽  
Garden Variety

scholarly journals Deriving Arabic verbal "templates" without templates

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 144
Author(s):  
Sam Zukoff
Keyword(s):  
Recent Work ◽  
Integrated Analysis ◽  
Verbal System ◽  
Garden Variety ◽  
Phonological Constraints ◽  
Main Driver

Much of the recent OT-based literature on Arabic root-and-pattern morphology has identified prosodic constraints as a main driver of the language’s verbal "templates". I argue instead that the system is governed by non-prosodic (morpho)phonological constraints (in the spirit of McCarthy 1993). Following much recent work, this approach views Arabic’s root-and-pattern system as garden-variety morpheme concatenation that is subject to unusual complications in the phonology and/or at the (morpho)syntax-phonology interface. This paper outlines an integrated analysis of the morphophonological properties of the Arabic verbal system without CV templates or prosodic constraints.

Auditory Evoked Responses to Similar Words with Phonemic Difference: Comparison between Children with Good and Poor Reading Scores

2001 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 160-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ignacio Valencia ◽  
Gloria B. McAnulty ◽  
Deborah P. Waber ◽  
Frank H. Duffy
Keyword(s):  
Poor Reader ◽  
Auditory Evoked Potentials ◽  
Poor Readers ◽  
Poor Reading ◽  
The Poor ◽  
Parietal Area ◽  
Long Latency ◽  
Lower Amplitude ◽  
Reader Group ◽  
Good And Poor Readers

Our previous study demonstrated a physiologic deficit in two-tone discrimination in poor readers. 1 This was specific to the left parietal area suggesting that poor readers handled rapid tones differently. The current paper extends this finding in the same population, demonstrating that poor readers also have difficulty with phonemic discrimination. Long latency auditory evoked potentials (AEP) were formed using a phonemic discrimination task in a group of children with reading disabilities and controls. Measuring peak-to-peak amplitude of the waveforms, we found reduced N1-P2 amplitude in the Poor Reader group. Using the t-statistic significance probability map (SPM) technique, we also found a group difference, maximal over the mid-parietal area, from 584 msec to 626 msec after the stimulus onset. This difference was due to a lower amplitude on the Poor Reader group. We hypothesized that this late difference constitutes a P3 response and that the Poor Reader group generated smaller P3 waves. These auditory evoked response (AER) data support a discrimination deficit for close phonemes in the Poor Reader group as they had smaller N1-P2 absolute amplitude and developed smaller P3 waves. Based on these data we should be able to differentiate between Good and Poor readers based on long latency potentials created from phonemic stimuli.

scholarly journals A Developmental Examination of Narrative Writing in EL and EL1 School Children Who Are Typical Readers, Poor Decoders, or Poor Comprehenders

2019 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-47
Author(s):  
Katherine E. D. Herbert ◽  
Angela Massey-Garrison ◽  
Esther Geva
Keyword(s):  
English Learners ◽  
Poor Reader ◽  
Reference Group ◽  
Developmental Trajectories ◽  
First Language ◽  
Sentence Structure ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Poor Comprehenders ◽  
Story Writing ◽  
Age Appropriate

This longitudinal study examined story-writing development of students from Grade 4 to Grade 6, comparing the developmental trajectories of English as a first language (EL1s; n = 43) and English learners (ELs; n = 108) in general, and in groups of EL1s and ELs with typically developing and poor reader profiles. In relation to their EL1 or EL reference group, students were classified in Grade 4 as typical readers ( n = 72), poor decoders ( n = 53), or poor comprehenders ( n = 26), with EL1s and ELs proportionally represented in each group. The effects of language, grade level, and reading group on story-writing measures were examined. Both EL1s and ELs developed story-writing skills in a similar manner, showing significant growth between Grades 4 and 6. Typically developing ELs attained age-appropriate story-writing levels. Poor decoders and poor comprehenders showed similar profiles of strengths and weaknesses, regardless of whether English was their first or second language. Both poor reader groups had significant difficulties in story-writing, struggling with the mechanics of writing, sentence structure, and story organization. Findings are discussed in terms of the interconnected relationship between reading and writing profiles, and the importance of a comprehensive understanding of sources of learning difficulties in ELs and EL1s.

A triage approach for the time-poor reader

2014 ◽  
Vol 48 (7) ◽  
pp. 595-596
Author(s):  
Gin S Malhi
Keyword(s):  
Poor Reader
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document