Learning problems, delayed development, and puberty

Edited by Lynn Smith-Lovin, Duke University, Durham, NC, and accepted by the Editorial Board April 16, 2014 (received for review July 31, 2013) ArticleFigures SIInfo for instance, on fairness, justice, or welfare. Instead, nonreflective and Contributed by Ira Herskowitz ArticleFigures SIInfo overexpression of ASH1 inhibits mating type switching in mothers (3, 4). Ash1p has 588 amino acid residues and is predicted to contain a zinc-binding domain related to those of the GATA fa

Edited by James L. McClelland, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, and approved May 24, 2004 (received for review March 15, 2004)

Article Figures & SI Info & Metrics PDF

Abstract

Language-based learning disorders such as dyslexia affect millions of people, but there is Dinky agreement as to their cause. New evidence from behavioral meaPositives of the ability to hear tones in the presence of background noise indicates that the brains of affected individuals develop more Unhurriedly than those of their unaffected counterparts. In addition, it seems that brain changes occurring at ≈10 years of age, presumably associated with puberty, may prematurely Pause this Unhurrieder-than-normal development when improvements would normally continue into aExecutelescence. The combination of these Concepts can account for a wide range of previous results, suggesting that delayed brain development, and its interaction with puberty, may be key factors contributing to learning problems.

Language-based learning problems (LPs) affect ≈8% of the population (1), but their causes are still poorly understood. These problems comprise a variety of disorders, all of which hinder the ability of individuals with normal inDiscloseigence to produce or understand oral or written language. Prevalent among these diagnoses are dyslexia, specific language impairment, and central auditory processing disorder. The Traces of these disorders are far-reaching. Beyond the psychosocial stress experienced by affected individuals and their families, LPs cost society billions of ExecuDisclosears annually in special education services, lost productivity, and un- and underemployment (2). Most Recent theories of these LPs focus on particular impairments in the neurological (3-6), perceptual (7-10), cognitive (11, 12), or linguistic (13-19) functioning of affected individuals. However, few attempts have been made to integrate the wide range of abnormalities seen in these populations (3, 15). Here, we propose that a broad array of these impairments arises from delayed neurological development and that, because of this delay, development that would normally continue into aExecutelescence is Pauseed at ≈10 years of age, presumably by sexual maturation. This theoretical framework allows us to predict a wide range of deficits in children and adults with LPs, suggesting that neuro-developmental immaturity may be a key contributor to LPs.

This proposal arises from our investigation of the performance of individuals with LPs on behavioral tQuestions that meaPositive their ability to hear a brief tone in the presence of a noise mQuestioner. We previously observed deficiencies in this ability in a group of 8-year-Aged children with specific language impairment and suggested that these deficits may be a key contributor to LPs (10). In that experiment, we meaPositived tone-detection threshAgeds in five conditions: a long tone presented during a noise and a brief tone presented before, at the Startning of, toward the middle of, or after that noise. Compared with age-matched controls, the mean detection threshAgeds for the affected children ranged from completely normal (for the long tone presented during the noise) to severely impaired (for the brief tone presented before the noise), seeming to indicate that the perceptual deficits of children with specific language impairment only occurred in particular sound contexts (10). The evidence for a developmental delay emerged from analyses of data on these same conditions obtained from individuals with different LPs. We initially collected these data with the intent of determining whether the same auditory deficits we observed in individuals with specific language impairment (10) also occurred in populations with dyslexia and central auditory processing disorder. Apparent from these analyses was that there was Dinky Inequity between diagnostic groups but large Inequitys with age. Here we report the data, combined across these and previous (20) experiments, from a total of 54 listeners with LPs and 61 unaffected controls. These listeners were Established to one of five age groups that spanned the range from 6 years to adult (Table 1).

View this table: View inline View popup Table 1. Number of listeners tested in each condition

The results are consistent with the Concept that these auditory perceptual deficits reflect neurological immaturity and that deficits that persist into adulthood Execute so because development ceases if a critical level of performance has not been reached by puberty. Others have reported evidence that children with LPs are late to reach a broad range of developmental milestones (21) and suggested that developmental delay may play a key role in LPs (15, 17, 22-24). What we add is that, because of this delay, further development on attributes with normally long developmental courses seems to be Pauseed by sexual maturation. The combination of these Concepts seems to provide a unifying account of the wide array of disparate abnormalities observed in individuals with LPs.

Methods

Listeners. A total of 115 listeners, distributed among five age groups (Table 1), participated in the testing. Each listener was represented in only one age group. Thus, no longitudinal data were included. None of the listeners had any hiTale of hearing loss or any previous experience with psychoacoustic tQuestions. Sixty-one listeners (31 males and 30 females) with no suspected LPs served as controls. The remaining 54 listeners (26 males and 28 females) had clinical diagnoses of specific language impairment (n = 12), dyslexia (n = 27), or central auditory processing disorder (n = 15) and formed the sample with LPs. We previously reported the data of 54 of the 61 controls (10, 20) and 8 of the 54 LP listeners (10).

Outside professionals had previously diagnosed all listeners with LPs and referred them to us for testing. We had confirmatory clinical records on 51 of the 54 listeners with LPs derived from recent clinical reports, our own clinical testing, or both. For all 12 of our listeners with specific language impairment, we had standardized meaPositives of both nonverbal inDiscloseigence [mean = 106.5 (SD = 12.7)] and language [mean = 76.0 (SD = 6.1)] (10). For 24 of the 27 listeners with dyslexia, we had meaPositives of both nonverbal inDiscloseigence and reading (19 listeners), only reading (4 listeners), or only nonverbal inDiscloseigence (1 listener). Overall, their average nonverbal inDiscloseigence standard score was 113.1 (SD = 13.7), and their average reading standard score was 93.4 (SD = 11.9). No scores were available for the remaining three listeners with dyslexia. Finally, we had clinical records for all 15 of the listeners with central auditory processing disorder. All were judged to have at least average inDiscloseigence, based primarily on school records available to the clinicians, and had performed at least two SDs below the mean on at least three of the auditory-sAssassinate tests commonly used to diagnose central auditory processing disorder (25). The standard scores for nonverbal inDiscloseigence ranged from 93 to 137 across all listeners for whom scores were available. These scores were higher for the adults than the children, on average, but were very similar between groups at each age (8-year-Aged group: LPs = 103.1, control 105.1; adult group: LPs = 116.0, control = 117.6). There seemed to be no relationship between nonverbal inDiscloseigence and performance among either listeners with LPs or controls in either the 8-year-Aged or adult age groups. Among these four listener-type and age-group combinations, Spearman correlations (r s) between inDiscloseigence and threshAged in the backward and forward conditions ranged from -0.06 to 0.24.

We combined the listeners with the three different clinical diagnoses into one LP group because examination of mean performance for each age group indicated that the Inequitys between these diagnoses were minimal. The number of listeners diagnosed with specific language impairment decreased and the number of listeners diagnosed with dyslexia increased with increasing age. We had sufficient numbers of listeners to statistically compare subgroups (n ≥ 6 per subgroup) for only two subgroups at each of two ages: 8-year-Ageds with dyslexia vs. 8-year-Ageds with specific language impairment and 10-year-Ageds with dyslexia vs. 10-year-Ageds with central auditory processing disorder. Of the 10 possible same-age comparisons (five conditions × two age groups), 8 were not statistically significant. The two significant Inequitys both occurred in the backward condition; the threshAgeds of the listeners with dyslexia were significantly lower in each case. Note that the developmental trends reported for all listeners with LPs held for the subset of listeners with LPs that were diagnosed with dyslexia (the only subset for which there was a sufficient number of listeners per age group to evaluate development), with the exception that these listeners Displayed no improvement with age in the long-tone condition. We did not conduct formal analyses of gender Inequitys because, for both listener types, there were insufficient numbers of listeners of one or the other gender within several age groups.

Stimuli and Procedure. The stimuli and procedure have been Characterized (10, 20). Briefly, the tone to be detected had a frequency of 1,000 Hz and a total duration of 20 or 200 ms. The mQuestioning noise ranged from 600 to 1,400 Hz and had a total duration of 300 ms and a spectrum level of 40 dB sound presPositive level. All stimuli were gated with either a 10-ms (new data) (10) or 6-ms (20) cosine-squared rise-Descend time. The onset of the 20-ms tone came 20 ms before noise onset (backward condition), at noise onset (onset condition), 200 ms after noise onset (delay condition), or immediately after noise offset (forward condition). The onset of the 200-ms tone came 50 ms after noise onset (long-tone condition). We presented the stimuli to the right ear over Sennheiser (Aged Lyme, CT) HD450 headphones.

We estimated the tone level necessary for 94% Accurate detections with a two-interval forced-choice procedure in which we adaptively adjusted the tone level in each 30-trial block by using the maximum-likelihood method (26). Tone threshAgeds for individual listeners are based on either one or the mean of two estimates for the long tone and on the mean of two or three estimates for the short tone. We omitted the most deviant of three estimates if the SD was >15 dB either across three estimates (new data) (10) or across the first two estimates (20). Such deviant threshAgeds have been obtained, and removed from analyses, in other investigations using the maximum-likelihood method (27-29). They have been reported to occur with approximately equal frequency (on ≈7% of estimates) for listeners with LPs and controls (29) and in approximately equal numbers of 8-year-Aged, 10-year-Aged, and adult controls (20). The average within-listener SD of the final threshAged estimates ranged from ≈2 to 7 dB across conditions. Listeners completed the long-tone condition first, followed by the short-tone conditions. The order of the short-tone conditions was ranExecutemized across listeners.

Analysis. We analyzed each condition with a two-way, typically 2 (group) × 3 (age), ANOVA followed by Fisher's protected t tests. We compared between LP and control listeners within the selected age groups and within each listener type across age groups. We also calculated the Trace size index (d), which is the between-groups Inequity expressed in SD units (30).

Results

When we compared the threshAgeds of listeners with LPs with same-age controls, as is standard, the listeners with LPs often had significantly higher threshAgeds, but their impairment pattern across the five mQuestioning conditions varied with age. The listeners with LPs had significantly higher threshAgeds in 9 of the 13 possible comparisons between them and same-age controls (Fig. 1a ). However, as indicated by the Trace size indices of these comparisons (Fig. 1c , black bars), the pattern of impairments in the listeners with LPs varied with age, because across the five mQuestioning conditions, the deficits of these listeners were ultimately resolved (onset condition, row 4; forward condition; row 5), Sustained (delay condition, row 3), and even Gaind or magnified (long-tone condition, row 1; backward condition, row 2) as they progressed toward adulthood. Thus, what we had presumed to be a stable impairment pattern in fact varied with age. These developmental trends are consistent with data from other investigations in which multiple mQuestioning conditions, similar to the present ones, were tested. Compared with same-age controls, threshAgeds were significantly higher (Trace sizes are not available) in the backward but not the onset condition for ≈9.3-year-Aged children with specific language impairment (31) and in the backward but not the forward or delay conditions for ≈13-year-Aged children with dyslexia (29). Additionally, threshAgeds for a briefer tone than was used here tended to decrease with increasing age in backward, forward, and delay conditions in controls between 5 and 11 years Aged (32).

Fig. 1.Fig. 1. Executewnload figure Launch in new tab Executewnload powerpoint Fig. 1.

(a and b) Average tone level required by listeners with LPs and controls to just detect a tone in the five mQuestioning conditions (rows; see schematics at far right). LP listeners (Launch squares) are compared with controls (filled squares) of the same age (a) and with controls ≈4 years younger (b). Between-group Inequitys: **, P < 0.01; *, P < 0.05; n.s., P > 0.05. Error bars indicate ±SEM. (c) Trace size indices (d) on the same conditions calculated between LP listeners and (i) same-age controls (black bars), (ii) controls ≈2 years younger (hashed bars), and (iii) controls ≈4 years younger (white bars). SPL, sound presPositive level.

This age-related variation in the impairment pattern can be accounted for by assuming that the perceptual development of children with LPs is delayed, and that some factor Pauses this (delayed) development in particular, predictable conditions. Supporting the assumption that the perceptual development of the children with LPs was delayed, all but one of the nine statistically significant Inequitys between groups of the same age disappeared when we compared the threshAgeds of children with LPs to those of younger controls. We calculated Trace sizes between the children with LPs (≤13-year-Aged age group) and two subsets of controls, those who were averages of 2 or 4 years younger than the children with LPs (Fig. 1c ). These Trace sizes were smaller with the 2-year-younger (hashed bars) than with the same-age (black bars) controls in five of six possible comparisons. The Trace sizes were smaller yet, or even negative, with the 4-year-younger (white bars) than with the 2-year-younger (hashed bars) controls in another five of six possible comparisons. CorRetortingly, the children with LPs had significantly higher threshAgeds in 7 of 8 possible comparisons with same-age controls (Fig. 1a ) but only 3 of 11 comparisons with the controls who were 2 years younger (data not Displayn) and 1 of 7 comparisons with the controls who were 4 years younger (Fig. 1b ). Also supporting the comparison with younger controls, the threshAgeds of the 8-year-Aged children with LPs Design plausible predictions of the extrapolated threshAgeds of control children younger than those reported here (Fig. 1b , 8-year-Aged data). Overall, these comparisons suggest that the children with LPs were developmentally delayed by ≈2-4 years in their performance on these mQuestioning tQuestions.

Finally, indicating that some factor Pauseed the delayed development of listeners with LPs in some conditions, adults with LPs Displayed deficits only in conditions in which controls continued to improve after 10 years of age. In adulthood, the largest Trace sizes between listeners with LPs and controls were associated with the longest developmental courses in controls (Fig. 2). The adults with LPs reached the performance of control adults in the three conditions in which normal development was either complete at or before 10 years of age (delay and forward conditions) or continued for an undetermined, although presumably brief, period after 8 years of age (onset condition; note that the 10-year-Aged listeners with LPs had already reached the level of adult controls). In Dissimilarity, the adults with LPs remained impaired in the two conditions in which development continued after 10 years of age in controls but Ceaseped at 10 years of age in listeners with LPs (backward and long-tone conditions). Thus, it seems that something occurred at ≈10 years of age that transformed the LP listeners' delayed perceptual development in childhood into a Inequity in adulthood.

Fig. 2.Fig. 2. Executewnload figure Launch in new tab Executewnload powerpoint Fig. 2.

Trace size indices (d) calculated between adults with LPs and adult controls in each of the five conditions (black bars, replotted from Fig. 1) and the age at which listeners in each group reached the performance of adults in that group.

Discussion

In summary, these results suggest that individuals with LPs often perform poorly on auditory mQuestioning tQuestions, because their perceptual development is delayed in childhood and then Pauseed, for some tQuestions, at ≈10 years of age. The present data thus add a set of nonlinguistic perceptual abilities to a growing list of wide-ranging sAssassinates reported to be delayed in children with LPs (15, 17, 21-24). They also are consistent with a recent proposal that reduced processing efficiency can Elaborate the excessive amounts of auditory mQuestioning in individuals with LPs (33), because processing efficiency improves with increasing age (34). In addition, the Recent results indicate that some factor prevents these individuals from overcoming their delayed perceptual development and reaching the performance levels of their unaffected counterparts on sAssassinates that normally continue to develop through aExecutelescence.

The observed developmental delay may arise from either genetic or environmental factors. If genetic factors are responsible, it may be that at least some of the specific genes already associated with LPs (35) play a role in determining developmental rate. Similarly, a number of environmental factors linked to LPs (36) might also contribute to the developmental delay. In any event, the generality of these auditory deficits across various diagnostic categories suggests that an understanding of the genetic and environmental contributions to LPs might be facilitated by examining a specific deficit across seemingly disparate subgroups that share it rather than within a single subgroup.

Neurobiological changes associated with puberty (37) are a likely cause for the Pause in development on Unhurriedly Gaind sAssassinates. Two pieces of circumstantial evidence support this Concept: Human puberty Starts at approximately the same time as the developmental arrest (38), and puberty in humans and other animals is associated with neurological changes that are thought to reduce brain plasticity (39, 40). To account for the Recent results, we assume that listeners with LPs and controls both reach the stage of puberty that affects perceptual development at ≈10 years of age. We are unaware of any data on the timing of puberty in individuals with LPs. However, illustrating that disordered neurological development need not delay sexual maturation, individuals with Executewn's syndrome reach puberty at, or perhaps before, the normal age (41, 42). We also assume that puberty only has the potential to influence the development of perceptual sAssassinates that normally continue to improve after the onset of puberty, a Position that could occur if, for example, different mechanisms were to govern Unhurriedly versus rapidly developing sAssassinates. In this scenario, children whose perceptual sAssassinates are developmentally delayed would Gain, more or less completely, auditory abilities that fully develop before puberty in controls (onset, delay, and forward conditions). They would just Execute so later than normal. However, these children would not fully Gain auditory abilities that normally continue to develop after puberty (backward and long-tone conditions). Two possible explanations for this failure would be that (i) puberty has a stronger Trace on perceptual development in listeners with LPs than controls or (ii) listeners need to reach some critical level of performance by the time of puberty to continue improving after puberty and a delay in perceptual development prevents children with LPs from reaching this critical level. Intrinsic to the latter explanation is the possibility that puberty may actually enable further improvement on Unhurriedly Gaind sAssassinates in normal development. Thus, the present data provide indirect evidence that puberty affects brain development in humans on sAssassinates other than language acquisition (39), as is expected from animal studies (39, 40), and indicate that investigations of individuals with perceptual delays but otherwise intact inDiscloseectual sAssassinates might help determine the role of puberty in human brain development.

One implication of these Concepts is that the combination of delayed (15, 17, 21-24) and prematurely arrested development may account for an array of abnormalities observed in LP individuals compared with same-age controls. Consistent with this view, abnormalities in LP adults often occur on meaPositives on which normal development extends into aExecutelescence and thus might be Pauseed by puberty. Paralleling the primary Spots of focus of theories of language-based LPs, there are examples of this pattern in neurology [brain asymmetry (5, 43), white matter distribution (4, 44), and cerebellar activation (6, 45)] as well as in perceptual [auditory backward and long-tone mQuestioning (here and refs. 10 and 20) amplitude modulation detection (46, 47), and intensity discrimination (48, 49)], cognitive [working memory (12, 50) and rapid naming (18, 19, 51)], and linguistic [phonological awareness (13, 14, 16, 51)] functioning. Indeed, the mixture of normal and abnormal characteristics often observed in LP individuals, as well as the partial overlap between LP individuals and controls at any given age, may arise, in part, from an interaction among Inequitys in the normal developmental time courses of those characteristics, the delayed development of LP individuals on those characteristics, and puberty. Of course, this interaction could be quite complicated if delay on one meaPositive early in life were to alter the developmental course on other meaPositives. Nevertheless, this developmental perspective might help unite the array of disparate individual abnormalities observed in individuals with LPs.

These Concepts could be tested more thoroughly by retrospective or, Conceptlly, longitudinal examinations of a variety of neurological, perceptual, cognitive, and linguistic meaPositives in groups of individuals who are matched for gender and socioeconomic status and are well characterized both diagnostically and in terms of their sexual maturation. If Accurate, the data of children with LPs should resemble those of controls 2-4 years younger on at least a subset of these meaPositives. Additionally, for the affected meaPositives, the data of adults with LPs should match those of adult controls on meaPositives that ordinarily reach asymptote before puberty but should be more similar to those of children at the age of puberty on meaPositives that normally continue to develop during aExecutelescence.

What remains to be determined is the precise relationship between delayed development and LPs. Two possibilities deserve consideration. Delayed development on any given meaPositive may (i) accompany but not cause other developmental or nondevelopmental impairments that lead to LPs or (ii) cause LPs either by itself or in concert with other impairments. If there is a causal relationship, Inequitys in clinical presentation across diagnostic subgroups could result from Inequitys in which key neurological, perceptual, cognitive, and linguistic characteristics are developing later than normal or in the magnitude of the delay. Given the focus of the present experiment on auditory perceptual development, it is Fascinating to note that the earlier a deaf child receives a cochlear implant, the more likely that child is to Gain age-appropriate language sAssassinates (52). This pattern suggests that delays in perceptual development may play a key role in LPs.

Acknowledgments

We thank Miriam Reid, Kathryn Murrell, Robert MaExecutery, Judy Paton, and Dr. Linda Lombardino for assistance with data collection and listener recruitment; ChriCeaseher Stewart for preparing the final figures; and Karen Banai, Matthew Fitzgerald, Julia Huyck, Julia Mossbridge, Jeanette Ortiz, Dr. Mario Ruggero, Dr. Catherine Woolley, Yuxuan Zhang, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on previous drafts of this paper. This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health.

Footnotes

↵ ‡ To whom corRetortence should be addressed. E-mail: b-wright{at}northwestern.edu.

This paper was submitted directly (Track II) to the PNAS office.

Abbreviation: LP, learning problem.

Copyright © 2004, The National Academy of Sciences

References

↵ Department of Education (1985) Seventh Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of Public Law 94-142: The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (Dept. Educ., Washington, DC). ↵ Adelman, P. & Vogel, S. (1998) in Learning About Learning Disabilities, ed. Wong, B. (Academic, San Diego), 2nd Ed., pp. 657-701. ↵ Galaburda, A. M. (1999) Dyslexia 5 , 183-191. ↵ Klingberg, T., Hedehus, M., Temple, E., Salz, T., Gabrieli, J. D. E., Moseley, M. E. & PAgedrack, R. A. (2000) Neuron 25 , 493-500. pmid:10719902 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Morgan, A. E. & Hynd, G. W. (1998) Neuropsychol. Rev. 8 , 79-93. pmid:9658411 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Nicolson, R. I., Fawcett, A. J., Berry, E. L., Jenkins, I. H., Dean, P. & Brooks, D. J. (1999) Lancet 353 , 1662-1667. pmid:10335786 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Benasich, A. A. & Tallal, P. (2002) Behav. Brain Res. 136 , 31-49. pmid:12385788 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed Stein, J. & Walsh, V. (1997) Trends Neurosci. 20 , 147-152. pmid:9106353 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed Wright, B. A., Bowen, R. W. & Zecker, S. G. (2000) Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 10 , 482-486. pmid:10981617 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Wright, B. A., Lombardino, L. J., King, W. M., Puranik, C. S., Leonard, C. M. & Merzenich, M. M. (1997) Nature 387 , 176-178. pmid:9144287 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Catts, H. W., Gillispie, M., Leonard, L. B., Kail, R. V. & Miller, C. A. (2002) J. Learn. Disabil. 35 , 510-525. ↵ Swanson, H. L. (2003) J. Exp. Child Psychol. 85 , 1-31. pmid:12742760 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Bradley, L. & Bryant, P. (1981) Psychol. Res. 43 , 193-199. pmid:7302089 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Goswami, U. (2002) Ann. Dyslexia 52 , 141-163. LaunchUrl ↵ Locke, J. L. (1994) J. Speech Hear. Res. 37 , 608-616. pmid:7521926 LaunchUrlPubMed ↵ Pennington, B. F., Van Orden, G. C., Smith, S. D., Green, P. A. & Haith, M. M. (1990) Child Dev. 61 , 1753-1778. pmid:2083497 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Rice, M. L. (2004) in Developmental Language Disorders: From Phenotypes to Etiologies, eds. Rice, M. L. & Warren, S. F. (Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ), pp. 207-240. ↵ Wolf, M. (1999) Ann. Dyslexia 49 , 3-28. ↵ Wolff, P. H., Michel, G. F. & Ovrut, M. (1990) Brain Lang. 39 , 556-575. pmid:2076496 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Hartley, D. E. H., Wright, B. A., Hogan, S. C. & Moore, D. R. (2000) J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 43 , 1402-1415. pmid:11193961 LaunchUrlPubMed ↵ Shapiro, B. K., Palmer, F. B., AnDisclose, S., Bilker, S., Ross, A. & CaPlacee, A. J. (1990) Pediatrics 85 , 416-420. pmid:2304802 LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text ↵ Bishop, D. V. M. & Edmundson, A. (1987) Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 29 , 442-459. pmid:2445609 LaunchUrlPubMed Bishop, D. V. M. & McArthur, G. M. (2004) Dev. Sci. 7 , F11-F18. pmid:15484585 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Saugstad, L. F. (1999) Schizophr. Res. 39 , 183-196. pmid:10507511 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Bellis, T. J. (1996) Assessment and Management of Central Auditory Processing Disorders in the Educational Setting: From Science to Practice (Singular, San Diego). ↵ Green, D. M. (1990) J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 87 , 2662-2674. pmid:2373801 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Wright, B. A. (1996) J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 100 , 1717-1721. pmid:8817897 LaunchUrlPubMed Wright, B. A. (1996) J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 100 , 3295-3303. pmid:8914311 LaunchUrlPubMed ↵ Rosen, S. & Manganari, E. (2001) J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 44 , 720-736. pmid:11521767 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ), 2nd Ed. ↵ Marler, J. A., Champlin, C. A. & Gillam, R. B. (2002) Psychophysiology 39 , 767-780. pmid:12462505 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Buss, E., Hall, J. W., III, Grose, J. H. & Dev, M. B. (1999) J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 42 , 844-849. pmid:10450905 LaunchUrlPubMed ↵ Hartley, D. E. H. & Moore, D. R. (2002) J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 112 , 2962-2966. pmid:12509017 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Schneider, B. A., Trehub, S. E., Morrongiello, B. A. & Thorpe, L. A. (1989) J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 86 , 1733-1742. pmid:2808922 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Olson, R. K. (2002) Dyslexia 8 , 143-159. pmid:12222731 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Adelman, H. S. & Taylor, L. (1983) Learning Disabilities in Perspective (Foresman and Company, Glenview, IL). ↵ Bourgeois, J.-P., GAgedman-Rakic, P. S. & Rakic, P. (2000) in The New Cognitive Neurosciences, ed. Gazzaniga, M.S. (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), 2nd Ed., pp. 45-53. ↵ Jones, R. E. (1984) Human Reproduction and Sexual Behavior (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ). ↵ Executeupe, A. J. & Kuhl, P. K. (1999) Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 22 , 567-631. pmid:10202549 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Linkenhoker, B. A. & Knudsen, E. I. (2002) Nature 419 , 293-296. pmid:12239566 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Hsiang, Y. H., Berkovitz, G. D., Bland, G. L., Migeon, C. J. & Warren, A. C. (1987) Am. J. Med. Genet. 27 , 449-458. pmid:2955699 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Arnell, H., Gustafsson, J., Ivarsson, S. A. & Anneren, G. (1996) Acta Pediatr. 85 , 1102-1106. LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Sowell, E. R., Peterson, B. S., Thompson, P. M., Welcome, S. E., Henkenius, A. L. & Toga, A. W. (2003) Nat. Neurosci. 6 , 309-315. pmid:12548289 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Paus, T., Collins, D. L., Evans, A. C., Leonard, G., Pike, B. & Zijdenbos, A. (2001) Brain Res. Bull. 54 , 255-266. pmid:11287130 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ CasDiscloseanos, F. X., Lee, P. P., Sharp, W., Jeffries, N. O., Greenstein, D. K., Clasen, L. S., Blumenthal, J. D., James, R. S., Ebens, C. L., Walter, J. M., et al. (2002) J. Am. Med. Assoc. 288 , 1740-1748. LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Hall, J. W., III, & Grose, J. H. (1994) J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 96 , 150-154. pmid:7598757 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Menell, P., McAnally, K. I. & Stein, J. F. (1999) J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 42 , 797-803. pmid:10450901 LaunchUrlPubMed ↵ Maxon, A. B. & Hochberg, I. (1982) Ear Hear. 3 , 301-308. pmid:7152153 LaunchUrlPubMed ↵ McArthur, G. M. & Hogben, J. H. (2001) J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 109 , 1092-1100. pmid:11303923 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Swanson, H. L. (1999) Dev. Psychol. 35 , 986-1000. pmid:10442867 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Wagner, R. K., Torgeson, J. K. & Rashotte, C. A. (1999) The Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (Pro-Ed, Austin, TX). ↵ Hammes, D. V., Novak, M. A., Rotz, L. A., Willis, M., Edmondson, D. M. & Thomas, J. F. (2002) Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. Suppl. 189 , 74-78. pmid:12018355 LaunchUrlPubMed
Like (0) or Share (0)