Sduty of dyslexic children--论文代写范文精选

事后检查他们的成绩，他们确实存在阅读障碍，在年龄和智商方面,他们没有特定的阅读或学习障碍。两个参与者必须被排除在这项研究中。小脑测试利用神经和形态系统,因此只需要一个年龄对照组。语音测试,它通常需要阅读年龄对照组。下面的report代写范文进行详述。

Participants 
Twenty-two children were recruited from a special school for dyslexic children and a centre of the Dyslexia Institute on the basis of a previous formal diagnosis of developmental dyslexia by an educational psychologist. Additional inclusion criteria were that they be aged between 8 and 12 years old, have a full-scale IQ greater than 80, reading and spelling scores below 110, and have no reported basic auditory dysfunction. Out of those 22 children, 7 had an additional diagnosis of ADHD, 1 a diagnosis of DCD, and 2 both ADHD and DCD, as documented in their institution's files, on the basis of standard tests such as Conner’s questionnaire and the Movement ABC (Note that these tests were not necessarily performed systematically in every child). Individuals with co-morbid ADHD and DCD were indeed actively sought alongside "pure" dyslexics, in order to address the co-morbidity hypothesis mentioned above. Twenty-two control children between 8 and 12 years old were recruited from a mainstream school with pupils of similar socio-economic status. Post-hoc examination of their psychometric scores helped ensure that they were matched with the dyslexic group in terms of age, performance IQ, and that they had no particular reading or learning disability. Two participants had to be excluded from the study, thereby reducing the cohort to 20: one had a performance IQ of 147 and was impossible to match with any of the dyslexic children; another one had signs of mental retardation (FSIQ: 57). 5 It should be noted that we did not recruit a reading-age control group. Cerebellar tests tap neurological and morphological maturation and therefore only require a chronological-age control group. Phonological tests, which would normally require a reading-age control group, were drawn from a standardised battery, making it possible to compare standard scores between children of different reading abilities but of similar general ability.

Procedure 
Tests were administered individually by the second author in a quiet conference room at the child's school/institution, except for a few control children who were tested at their home. Dyslexic children, who already had IQ scores, were tested in one single session. Control subjects were tested in two separate sessions, one for the WISC, and one for the other tests.

Psychometric measures 
Intelligence was measured using the WISC-IIIUK (Wechsler, 1992) and reading and spelling ability was measured using the WRAT3 (Wilkinson, 1993). All dyslexic children had been administered the WISC by the school/institution less than one year before the study, and most of them also had recent WRAT scores available; those scores were therefore copied without re-testing. For dyslexic children who did not have recent WRAT scores and for all control children, the necessary tests were administered at the time of the study.

Cerebellar tests 
For bead threading and finger to thumb, the best performance of the two trials of each task was recorded as the final result. Three dyslexic subjects were unable to perform the finger to thumb task (1 had dyslexia + ADHD, 1 dyslexia + DCD, 1 dyslexia + ADHD + DCD). For the purpose of further analyses, they were assigned the same time as the worst successful performer (who had dyslexia + ADHD; his best performance was 29.6 sec. for 10 finger to thumb oppositions). For postural stability, the median of the three trials was taken as the final result. 

This is because we felt that on any trial, a subject might be able to resist the push, or on the contrary, might lose 9 their balance by chance; taking the median therefore allows one to disregard outlying trials. Table 3 shows the data obtained for the cerebellar tasks. A Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the groups because the distributions were not normal (Shapiro-Wilk's test). Significant differences were found in each motor task (postural stability:U=134, p=0.02; bead threading: U=135, p=0.032; finger to thumb:U=121, p=0.013). A number of dyslexic children are clearly out of the controls' range, although it is quite remarkable that the worst performers at one task are not the worst performers at the other (see correlations below). 

On the other hand, about half the dyslexic children are within the control range, although not amongst the very best performers. Table 3 here For time estimation, the classification function (% of "shorter" responses as a function of the duration of the comparison tone) of each subject was fitted with a logistic function. The parameters of the logistic function were then used to estimate the threshold duration difference at which each subject was 75% correct. The same procedure was followed for loudness estimation with the percentage of "softer" response. The logistic regression revealed that all subjects had slopes significantly different from 0, except for one dyslexic subject, in the time estimation task (whose responses are therefore not different from chance). Thereafter we refer to this subject as MM. Data is missing for three control subjects in time estimation and two of these in loudness estimation. As shown in Table 3, the two groups were not significantly different in either task (time: U=139, p=0.18; loudness: U=142.5, p=0.13; again the distributions were not normal). Most of the controls and dyslexics overlap in the region of low thresholds. 

However, there are a number of dyslexic outliers. As expected, the most extreme outlier in time estimation is MM, the subject whose slope is not different from 0. His threshold of 916ms is therefore not very meaningful. There is one more outlier, and a few other "borderline" dyslexics in time estimation. Curiously, there are also three dyslexic outliers in loudness estimation, although this task is not supposed to tap the cerebellum. Furthermore, these are not the same subjects who are impaired on time and on loudness estimation, suggesting that outliers cannot simply be explained by an inability to perform psychophysical tasks or by basic auditory dysfunction. However, the high attentional demands of the task may have played a role in the children's willingness to perform conscientiously. 

General Discussion 
Beyond the present data, the idea that motor skill is a precursor of phonological and reading skill flies in the face of a larger body of evidence. As pointed out by Ivry and Justus (2001) in their commentary on Nicolson et al. (2001), the cerebellar theory of dyslexia is intimately linked to the motor theory of speech (Liberman, Cooper, Harris, & MacNeilage, 1963). Although we cannot review here all the arguments for and against the motor theory, let us just point out that the causal model proposed by Nicolson et al. (2001) crucially relies on one assumption of the motor theory that is possibly the most controversial and widely criticised (Fourcin, 1975b), and was subsequently abandoned in a revision of the theory (Liberman & Mattingly, 1985): it is the assumption that the acquisition of internal representations of speech (i.e., phonology) relies on explicit speech articulation. The first piece of counter-evidence was provided by a famous patient studied by Lenneberg (1962) and Fourcin (1975a). This patient suffered from a severe congenital dysarthria which made his speech almost totally unintelligible. 

Nevertheless, language comprehension developed 13 normally in this child, implying that he had acquired the ability to adequately process the sounds of English. Furthermore, literacy was also acquired without problem. More evidence of an absence of impact of articulatory skill on language comprehension, reading and spelling was subsequently reported (Cromer, 1980; Hatfield & Walton, 1975). A more recent case of a congenitally speechless child (oral apraxia) was reported by Cossu (in press), who showed that, in addition to normal reading and writing skills, the child also had normal verbal memory and meta-phonological skills. In the light of this evidence, it appears unlikely that an articulatory deficit, whether of a cerebellar origin or not, might have any notable effect on the phonology and reading of dyslexic children.

51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。
更多report代写范文欢迎访问我们主页 www.51due.com 当然有report代写需求可以和我们24小时在线客服 QQ:800020041 联系交流。-X