Talk:Dyslexia/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Dyslexia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Dyslexia a man made problem?

Some would appear to dispute that dyslexia is a man made problem.

The underlying causes of dyslexia, sensory and/ or motor information processing disorders or deficts, and conflicting dominant learning styles have been always been part of human nature, as this is what makes us all different from each other. So these differences existed before man developed speech, and before man went on to develop a visual notation of speech. So the symptoms of having problems using the human visual notation of the human devised auditory communication system can only act to highlight the existances of these differences or deficits. Which will require further medical investigation.

Unlike present day human inventions and developments which come complete with an instruction manual, man forgot to create the basic instruction manual regarding speech and the visual notation of speech communication systems. So we are now having to analyse these issues retrospectively, as we try to understand and define which skills are required to perform the task of reading, and how these skills interact when performing the task of reading. Unfortunately there is not even an Agreed Working Model for the task of reading. This really creates further problems when trying to identify the issues and problems that those who have problems performing the task of reading, Dyslexics. So finding answers to our dyslexic problems is not an easy or simple task. It is a collection of very complex issues, for the most of these issues we are still trying to create the technology required to help us understand the true nature of the problems before we can even begin to searcg for and find solutions.

These problems would still be there even if we had developed an alternative communication system, which is partially demonstrated by the problems that Chinese Dyslexics have reading their whole word style Characters. dolfrog 22:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Dyslexia debate

Dyslexia is a man made problem, that highlights the existence of uderlying conditions that cause the dyslexic symptoms. when we stop this stupid search for a dyslexic condition and start to recognise the various underlying causes of these dyslexic symptoms then progress can begin to be made. Having problems using a mn made communication system can not be a medical condition. But medical conditions can cause you to have problems using man made communication systems. So all of the various thoeries regarding the underlying causes of dyslexia are correct, they are not competing theories but different theories of problems that can create the dyslexic symptoms. And having to cope with some of the real conditions that are the uderlying causes of dyslexia can create other common symptoms such asd poor organisational skills and poor short term memory. So the whole page needs to be re drafted to reflect that Dyslexia is not a condition in its own right, but the observed symptoms of one ore more conditions which that are mentioned or suggested indirectly by most of the research theories related to dyslexia. This is not rocket science, and is obvious to many dyslexics like myself. -- dolfrog 17:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Condition? Problem? Symptom? Seems like meaningless hair-splitting. The fact is that some people have difficulties with written language; these difficulties can exist in the absence of other identifiable "conditions" (e.g. retardation, vision problems, learning disabilities), and we should try to find ways to help these individuals improve their reading skill. Calling it a "condition" does no harm and is a fair term for the, um, condition. -- kibi 18:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Calling dylexia a condition in some cultures can cause harm. Calling dyslexia a condition in our culture implies a defined medical condition,and that definion can be a very narrow interpretation of dyslexia, which does not include the wider range of issues that can contribute to causing the dyslexic symptoms. This happens in the UK, where the tunnel vision of the British Dyslexia Association prevents any real understanding of the full range of underlying causes of dyslexia, due to this national lack of understanding of the wider issues that cause dyslexia, many in the UK are prevented from getting the correct type of help they need. dolfrog

I agree with what dolfrog has said about the description of "dyslexia". It is not a singular condition in its own right. There are many conditions or disorders a person may have that manifests as what we call "dyslexia". An analogy to show what I mean would be: A man cannot walk, so people decide to call his "condition" "Common walking disorder". There are many people who cannot walk, due to spinal injuries, mental impairment, atrophied leg muscles, arthritis, broken bones etc. You can not label them all the "Common walking disorder" and try and apply the same singular treatment and attitude towards them all, as they are all VERY different things that happen to show very similar symptoms.

So the fact he cannot walk is not a diagnosable "condition" in itself. The same applies to dyslexia, some people have problems with auditory stimuli and nothing else, some of the symptoms are what we call "dyslexia". Another person may have visual problems which manifest as some of the symptoms we call "dyslexia". The treatment for one may be VERY different to the treatment for the other, as the underlying conditions causing dyslexic symptoms vary substantially. Just as when 100 people have "common walking disorder" they all should not receive the same treatment, or even be classed as the same "condition". There may be 10 or 20 different reasons for each of them being unable to walk. Dyslexia as a “condition” in and of itself is as erroneous as "common walking disorder". Dyslexia is a loose term for the symptoms of various conditions. Dyslexia is caused by various neurological conditions/disorders, it does not cause itself, saying so is completely circular and shows a gross misunderstanding of the entire subject.

"Dyslexia is a condition or learning disability which causes difficulty with reading and/or writing,"

The above sentence is flawed. Dyslexia is (a) difficulty with reading and/or writing below the level that is expected in comparison with a persons (general?) intelligence despite "..conventional teaching and adequate sociocultural opportunity". Dyslexia does not cause, dyslexia is the symptom. An underlying condition causes dyslexia.

"and which is not due to an intelligence below the normal range or to sensory problems such as poor eyesight."

Auditory Dyslexia (Auditory processing disorder) and Visual Dyslexia (Scotopic sensitivity syndrome), these could arguably be described as “sensory problems”, “poor eyesight” is not a useful/meaningful term. Poor eyesight could mean long or short sightedness but one could also describe Visual Dyslexia as “poor eyesight”. So this sentence can easily lead to misunderstanding, as with most of the introduction.

"Dyslexia is characterized by difficulty or inability to learn adequate reading or writing skills despite conventional teaching and adequate sociocultural opportunity."

This line is fine. I recommend the following replace the first paragraph of the introduction: (for a start...)

Dyslexia is a deficiency in reading and/or writing abilities, at a level that is below what is expected in comparison with an individual's other cognitive abilities (level of intelligence)^[1], despite conventional teaching and adequate sociocultural opportunity. It is characterized by difficulties with phonological processing^[2], automatic naming skills and working memory. It's effects can be seen in spoken language as well as written language.

Also suggest the adding of Category:Neurology as it supersedes Category:Disability, but I think both are important. --Gerard Duncan 15:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I will implement the aforementioned changes to the article. Discuss if a disagreement arises... --Gerard Duncan 22:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You can click my name to see my profile. I'm just trying to keep things objective and in accordance with Wiki standards of objectivity, which is why it makes sense to note the different viewpoints in their appropriate context, such as in the "Definitions" section or the "Controversy" section. Armarshall 02:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"...I'm just trying to keep things objective and in accordance with Wiki standards of objectivity..." Which is why I edited as I did, what I wrote was objective and did not claim any subjective stance, or opinion, but maybe not specific enough. What you have in the article is POV, so I agree that we need to remove it. The original line "Dyslexia is a condition or learning disability..." Dyslexia does not fall under the specific definition of a medical condition. Unless you use "condition" in an extremely loose sense, which then could be used to mean symptom, but it could also mean disease and many other things besides. It is ill-defined and out of place here. I recommend using the term "syndrome"

"...the term syndrome refers to the association of several clinically recognizable features, signs (discovered by a physician), symptoms (reported by the patient), phenomena or characteristics which often occur together, so that the presence of one feature alerts the physician to the presence of the others. In recent decades the term has been used outside of medicine to refer to a combination of phenomena seen in association."

From the article: "...which causes difficulty with reading and/or writing..." Again, dyslexia is (a) (syndrome) symptom(s), which is/are caused by (an) underlying condition(s). It is not a medical condition which is the cause of problems with reading/writing. Problems with reading/writing IS dyslexia, i.e. problems with reading/writing(despite help and cognitive aptitude elsewhere) is basically another way to say dyslexia. Dyslexia is a syndrome which is CAUSED by an underlying neurological condition (be that phonological, visual or something else.)

You said “... which is why it makes sense to note the different viewpoints in their appropriate context, such as in the "Definitions" section or the "Controversy" section.” Different viewpoints do not relate to whether or not it is a syndrome/condition/symptom, different viewpoints relate to what CASUES it, and that is where some of the controversy lies, saying that dyslexia is a cause in and of itself is an unsubstantiated viewpoint.

So if we want to remain objective, we cannot assert that Dyslexia is a condition, we can not assert that it is a cause in itself. If there is a disagreement, please state the reasons specifically. Otherwise what I said stands. -- Gerard Duncan 23:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with the removal of the word "condition" -- it was all the other changes that I had difficulty with, which I noted below; including complete elimination of the phrase "learning disability", use of discrepancy-based definition, definition of dyslexia as being equivalent to a "deficiency" in reading, etc. Again, I'd like to work toward an improved definition -- I agree with the criticisms leveled at the old definition, I just did not with the replacement, because I felt it was inaccurate in other respects.

Also, while I personally do not feel that dyslexia is a "condition" I would not go so far as to say that others don't disagree. For example, see this interview quoting Thomas Viall, executive director of the International Dyslexia Association, "The work Sally and Bennett Shaywitz are doing at Yale is particularly important, Viall says, to validating dyslexia as a medical condition" -- http://www.lcmedia.com/mind383.htm I personally do not agree with Viall's view point -- I follow the Thomas West view that dyslexia is a result of a different thinking modality -- but Viall is the director of the largest dyslexia organization in the US and the Shaywitz's are leading researchers -- in other words, they have a lot better credentials than I do. So how can we possibly disregard their point of view and still be "objective"? So yes, lets change the wording... but simply eliminating the parts we don't agree with is not the solution. I feel strange because I really am arguing for inclusion of points that I don't particularly agree with, but I know they are viewpoints that are held by many leading educators and researchers in the field. Armarshall 00:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to shed further light on how I would define dyslexia (as opposed to consensus view) - here is the definition I wrote that is in my book:

" dyslexia a learning difficulty primarily associated with written language such as reading, writing, spelling, and in some cases, working with numbers, stemming from naturally occurring variations in brain structure and function "

I am not arguing for its inclusion in Wikipedia -- just offering it so you can see where I am coming from - it was the definition that best met the agenda of the book, which was to help parents understand dyslexia in their children -- and also that my publisher was happy with. But it does give an example of how I managed to avoid words like "condition", "syndrome", "disability" or "deficiency" - and also avoided any sort of techno-babble. Armarshall 00:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, elimination of the phrase "learning disability" was purely semantic on my part(as I assumed it was implicit, but yes, it should be explicit). I never said dyslexia was a "deficiency in reading"(as that would imply a negative level of comprehension in the overall sense) but the ability(as that implies to learning, so I can see why you thought I was talking about the discrepancy model), which I see now as open ended, maybe to much room for interpretation. I see where you are coming from and accept that what I said does not work in that sense. I am aware of the Shaywitz's work and I am impressed, but must say they are quite loose with their terminology, referring to the brain abnormalities they find with dyslexic people as "dyslexia", so I see what you mean about the problem as whether to call it a condition or syndrome, etc. and why it is debatable. Because people are applying the term "dyslexia" to the syndrome AS WELL as the underlying "medical condition/s".

"..how can we possibly disregard their point of view and still be "objective"?" I never condoned disregarding their point of view, I don't personally have an objection to it, we just need to make sure we know whether they are talking about the physical aspects or the symptoms when using what they say for a citation, and with Viall's quote ""The work Sally and Bennett Shaywitz are doing at Yale is particularly important, Viall says, to validating dyslexia as a medical condition"" it is not explicit in what he means, and appears as though it could be paraphrased, and something as simple as one missing or changed word could completely change the meaning or intention of the original quote, and bias and/or ignorance of a complex subject such as this, that could very easily happen. So I think semantics is the problem here.

So dyslexia IS a condition if you are referring to the brain abnormalities, and dyslexia IS a syndrome if you are referring to the symptoms. The problem with referring to the brain abnormalities as dyslexia (condition) is that the abnormalities have other symptoms other than the "basic" syndrome of dyslexia. So how shall we approach this with the article? I agree with your points and looking at The International Dyslexia Association's web site, maybe we could use their definition, or a similar approach (when referring to dyslexia they are not talking about the specifics of the medical conditions(brain abnormalities), but the syndrome(symptoms)):

http://www.interdys.org/servlet/compose?section_id=5&page_id=95#What%20is%20dyslexia?

Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurological in origin. It is characterized by difficulties with accurate and / or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities. These difficulties typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of language that is often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities and the provision of effective classroom instruction. Secondary consequences may include problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience that can impede growth of vocabulary and background knowledge.

-- Gerard Duncan 02:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As an added note, all the offical definitions of dyslexia in this article refer to dyslexia as a syndrome, except The British Dyslexia Association:

"Dyslexia is a difference in the brain area that deals with language. It affects the underlying skills that are needed for learning to read, write and spell. Brain imaging techniques show that dyslexic people process information differently. In a report on the House of Lords Dyslexia debate which took place on December 7, 2005, the government confirms that dyslexia is not a myth."

which is not actually their their definition. It appears to be a part of a statment realeased in repsonce to a show discrediting dyslexia and not their offical definition. I'm going to replace the un-cited quote in the article with the correct version from their site. Which refers to the syndrome. Are there any up-to-date offical statments that actually refer to dyslexia as a medical condition, in the proper context, and not broad usage of disease? -- Gerard Duncan 03:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about up to date references to "medical condition" -- Viall was not paraphrased (I've heard the actual interview), but he is not a doctor, either. There is also some politics involved. The IDA used to have the following definition on their site:

Dyslexia is a learning disability characterized by problems in expressive or receptive, oral or written language. Problems may emerge in reading, spelling, writing, speaking, or listening. Dyslexia is not a disease; it has no cure. Dyslexia describes a different kind of mind, often gifted and productive, that learns differently. Dyslexia is not the result of low intelligence. Intelligence is not the problem. An unexpected gap exists between learning aptitude and achievement in school. The problem is not behavioral, psychological, motivational, or social. It is not a problem of vision; people with dyslexia do not "see backward." Dyslexia results from differences in the structure and function of the brain. People with dyslexia are unique; each having individual strengths and weaknesses. Many dyslexics are creative and have unusual talent in areas such as art, athletics, architecture, graphics, electronics, mechanics, drama, music, or engineering. Dyslexics often show special talent in areas that require visual, spatial, and motor integration. Their problems in language processing distinguish them as a group. This means that the dyslexic has problems translating language to thought (as in listening or reading) or thought to language (as in writing or speaking).

This is no longer on the main IDA site, but can still be seen on the Austin-area branch site at http://www.austinida.org/what_is.html I personally believe that the reason for the removal from the main site is that IDA was actively involved in supporting litigation relative to claims of discrimination against adult dyslexics, so the IDA wanted to revert to a more medical-sounding definition.

Anyway, I agree that it is largely semantic and I am going to try to look at the various definitions and see whether we can come up with a version that incorporates all the good stuff and gets rid of all the questionable stuff. I really do like the quotation from the BDA, so that might also be something to incorporate as well. Armarshall 06:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC) The BDA does not take into account the ongoing Research into dyslexia in the Universites of the leading Universities in the UK, The BDA has its own Funding based agenda. (The BDA is not a non profit organisation, it has products and services to sell and is therefore a commercial body) There are many peer reviewed UK Resaerch papers regarding Dylexia over the last decade or more that the BDA choose to ignore and does not discuss even withs its own membership. So the BDA is not the defining source on this subject.

Last year I posted a series of links regarding UK Dyslexia Research on the UK Governments Education Forum which can be found at http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=3097&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1#3097 these links may help explain a few issues.

And large organisations tend to be good at selling their product or agenda, which historically may not be in line with the best current research, and it is not a realistic recommendation follow the output of members of that organisation just because of its size, most large organisations have their own internal agenda, especially if not a non-profit organisation. And some non profit organisationsd are influnced by their fundraising agendas. And from this perspective it is better to have dyslexia defined as a medical condition as funding and research sponsorship is easier. So unfortunately you have to question the motives behind these statements made by large organisations and their members

dolfrog 10:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean that I liked it because it came from BDA, I just meant that I liked the wording because it managed to eliminate the word "condition" that you objected to. Anyway, I've had a go at trying to redraft things, with suggested changes in topic #53 (New definition - introductory paragraph) at the bottom of the page -- can you have a look at it? I'd like to get a consensus as to how to best word it, and would really like your input as you raised concerns about words like "condition". Armarshall 10:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The problems that cause my own dyslexia, mean i have problems with some of the Wiki terminolgy and uderstanding how some of the technical Wiki processes work. so i do not uderstand what #53 means. However I have managed to edit most of the "condition" references out and replaced them with "syndrome". I have also added a few links to the auditory processing disorder (APD) Wiki which i helped to edit sometime ago. Glue Ear has an official term of Otitis Media and i have added that to the reference to Glue Ear. Glue Ear is also a way of acquiring APD (UK Medical Researcg Council 2004 http://www.ihr.mrc.ac.uk/products/ ) and a a side issue you may like to visit my own Dyslexia Web Page of links http://capdlinks.homestead.com/Dyslexia.html which demonstrates my own way of thinking. best wishes -- dolfrog 12:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Changing "Evidence that dyslexia is a neurological condition is substantial." to "Evidence that dyslexia is a neurological syndrome is substantial. " is in error, both are incorrect wording. Something like "Evidence that dyslexia is caused by a neurological disorder is substantial." Would make more sense, and I can find many sources (pubmed.gov for example, is a peer reviewed online medical journal) to cite, if it will be changed acordingly. Disorder would relate to the physicalities of the brain evidence, whereas "syndome" is dyslexia itself. Let me know how you feel about that. -- Gerard Duncan 13:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't like "disorder" any more than "syndrome" or "condition" -- the problem with "disorder" is it assumes that something is "wrong" with the brain -- many of the leading brain researchers (example Galaburda) feel that what they are seeing in terms of differences in brain structure is part of the normal variations - it just happens impede the process of learning to read. In other words, a person with long legs can run faster than a person with short legs, but that doesn't mean that having shorter legs is a "disorder" - it just means that some bodies are better suited for running than others.

So I'd favor leaving off the noun, for example: "There is substantial evidence that dyslexia has neurological cause" -- or, "There is substantial evidence that dyslexia is caused by differences in brain structure or function." -- Armarshall 02:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Disorder would not cover Visual-Spatial Learnering which is a different way of thinking.

"There is substancial evidence that dyslexia is caused by neurological information processing differences, these differences can be the result variations in brain structure, brain fuction, a nuerological disorder, or any combination of these issues." Grammer is not my strong point so You may have a better way of putting it. best wishes -- dolfrog 02:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

My main interest is promoting a greater awareness of Auditory Processing Disorder (APD), it has been since my son was first diagnosed in 1998. He was first diagnosed as being dyslexic some 5 years before. So far my own dianosis for both of these issues has always followed a few years after my sons initial diagnosis. I helped found APDUK, http://www.apduk.org/ , and currently I design and maintain the APDUK web site, the web site is our main lobbying tool, initially to have APD officially recognised in the UK and to pursuade research profeesionals to research new APD diagnostic prcedures and support programs. Most of the web sites' initial content was links to UK peer reviewed research papers regarding dylexic researcg that identified and recognised Visual and Auditory factors as contributory causes of dyslexia so our first main web pages were http://www.infolinks.apduk.org/ukapdprof.htm and http://www.infolinks.apduk.org/international_page.htm which to our surprise was quickly followed with interest in our dyslexia web page at http://www.infolinks.apduk.org/audiovisual_dyselxia.htm One of our biggest problems in gaining greater APD awareness is the lack of understanding of what dyslexia is especially in the UK, and the naarow definition promoted in the UK which is largely based on the research of the 1970s and 1980s. And it is the big agencies who refuse to move with modern day research. they even refuse to work with us. Yet where do we locate many who have APD, on Adult Dyslexia forums, adults trying to find out the true nature of their problems. These forums have dyslexics with a wide variety of issues that cause their dylexia, and many find different coping strategies or programs can help.

APDUK, has a good working relationship with the UK Medical Research Council'Institute of Hearing Research, which now spearheads APD research in the UK. Many of these researchers have worked with, or are the leading UK dyslexia researchers.

There is a new line of research which is still an ongoing project, to evaluate whether APD is an underlying medical cause of Dyslexia. I am alsoaware that there has ben a great deal of discussion on this topic in the UK, the USA, and Australia, as the leading researchers in these countiess do have many lines of communication. So it could be that the research regarding a medical condition could relate to APD, the coresponding visual processing disoder, and the other medical sonditions that can cause dyslexia. best wishes -- dolfrog 04:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Dolfrog, you wrote "so i do not understand what #53 means" I am sorry if my reference was confusing. I created a new topic called "New definition - introductory paragraph" which is the last topic on the page. It happens to have the number #53 in the Table of Contents that appears at the top of the page, which is why I referred to the number. When you are making edits to this page, if you click the little + sign on the tab to the right of the "edit this page" tab, it will create a new topic, and add it to the bottom of the page. In any case, I would like your input to the ideas on how the first few paragraphs of the page should be amended. I posted a suggestion, Gerard made some changes, etc. I agree that there should be more info about APD and that it is frustrating to deal with some of the established dyslexia organizations like IDA, BDA, etc. I guess when an organization has been around awhile, they get kind of entrenched in their ways and slow to adapt to change. Armarshall 07:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Armarshall, point taken about disorder. I agree with rewording to exclude the noun. Agreed, “There is substantial evidence that dyslexia has a neurological cause.” would seem to work much better. I also like what dolfrog wrote afterwords.

Dolfrog, Hey, I am very aware of ADPUK and your mailing lists etc., you are the reason I found out I had, or even knew about (c)Auditory Processing Disorder. I must say it has helped me a lot with all the information. My teachers were telling me I probably have dyslexia, but the term had no concrete meaning, and I was getting misinformation from everywhere about it, so I was left dazed and confused until I found your site(purely accidentally) which lead on to much extensive(but very slow :P) reading. I now am better at coping with the difficulties it can cause, with dealing with situations, to how I approach learning, my spelling and grammar and vocabulary(ironically that is one word I ALWAYS have problems saying/spelling) have improved dramatically once I knew HOW to learn...(thought I still have much to improve) I.e., Visually memory instead of auditory memory. I was/am a visual spacial learner, but didn't know it, just knowing can help, so people do appricaite all you do, and I want what you want and what your organisation/s want. And take your advice seriously. I find it quite depressing , when trying too look at the available information on dyslexia and causes of dyslexia(or lack thereof) that our educational system has available.

It is laughable(but not funny) when looking at the large dyslexia associations websites and not finding ANYTHING at all about the causes, such as ADP... So if my wording sounds biased in one way or another(in the article), I assure you it is not intentional as I am trying to present as neutral a view as possible,(given the lack of official information) even if I think something is OBVIOUS. -- Gerard Duncan 12:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that auditory processsing disorder or visual processing disorder necessarily needs to be separated from Dyslexia. Sure it can be separate disorder from Dyslexia, but it can be a part of Dyslexia. I feel that a lot of people don't see the big picture when it comes to Dyslexia. Too many focus on one part of Dyslexia,and they name it a disorder corresponding to that disorder part of Dyslexia. A lot of Dyslexics have numerous problems that is all connected through the difficulty of processing words. example Susan Barton made a good point

MYTH: It can’t be dyslexia. I had my child tested outside of the school system. They said it was: (pick one)

Auditory Discrimination Problem 
Auditory Processing Disorder 
Central Auditory Processing Disorder (CAPD) 
Orthographic Deficit 
Difficulty remembering spelling patterns 
Dysgraphia 
Dysnomia 
Dysphonetic Deficit 
Phonemic Awareness Deficit 
Reading Disability (RD) 
Reading Fluency Problem 
Short-term or Long-term Memory Deficit 
Specific Language Disability (SLD) 
Visual Processing Disorder 
Visual-Motor Integration Disorder 
Visual Memory Deficit 
Visual Tracking Problem 
Visual Convergence Problem 
Vocabulary on Demand Problem 
Word Retrieval Deficit 
Written Language Disorder

FACT: What dyslexia is called depends upon the type of specialist who did the testing, and their knowledge of dyslexia.

Dyslexia affects many different areas, but some testers only check one area. They find one weakness and come to the wrong conclusion. They don’t realize that weakness may be part of a bigger problem: dyslexia.

It’s like the fable of the blind men who approach an elephant from various directions. The one who discovers the trunk describes the animal very differently than the one who finds the tail, than the one who finds the leg, the tusk, etc.

None of them “see” that what they found is just one part of a bigger thing, an elephant.

http://www.bartonreading.com/dys.html#myth

I believe that Susan Barton is right. Too many people do focus on one thing and just label it without seeing the big picture. It's ironic, it is said that we Dyslexics are good at seeing the big picture. You would think that people would see the big picture about our Dyslexia and not just label bits and pieces of it. also people get their mental processes tested and they do end being told about the certain problems that combine to form their condition. It's not like they diagnose Dyslexia and don't explain about it. They often go over the issues with people. For instance, I was told that I have problems with string of words,auditory processing issues,mild dysarthric speech,impaired immediate visual memory,borderline impaired immediate memory,borderine impaired sentence repetition,abnormal cerebellar system, poor saccadic,pursuit eye movements,and strong visual spatial thinking skills with lack of comparabable verbal facility that makes it hard for me to express my ideas in a highly verbal society. Dr. Levinson diagnosed me as having cerebellar vestibular dysfunction which he believed is root of Dyslexic Syndrome. It was Dr. Levinson's testing that got the Veteran Affairs neurologists to examine me. you can see my testing here. http://astynaz.myphotoalbum.com/view_album.php?set_albumName=album01 -- Satabishara 06:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Satabrishara

That list from Susan Barton'Web site is a list of the underlying causes of the dyslexic symptoms, all of which have more problems than just dyslexia. Do once the dyslwexic symptoms are diagnosed you then have to find out which of theses underlying causes are the cause of your dyslexia. We are not saying that dyslexia does not exist as a set of symptoms , but that it can not be a codition. The so called remedial programs have to address these underlying cuases to have any chance of providing any benefit. And this is why not all remedial programs help all dyslexics. And why some agencies deny the existance of more than one cause of dyslexia because some groups of dyslexics do not respond to their favoured program. This done on pure greed their agenda is "our program is for all dyslexics, our program defines dyslexics, so they have to buy our products". So we have to include all dyslexics whatever the underlying cause and whatever remedial program helps. So dyslexia can only be a syndrome of symptoms that indicate that you need to find oput the real cause which could be on that list. This does not deny the existance of dyslexic problems or symptomsbut dispells the myth that dyslexias a condition, which is almost impossible for just having problems using a man made communication system. best wishes -- dolfrog 10:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

10-20% of "population" has dyslexia?

I removed this statement which was the leading sentence of the "Facts and Statistics" section. A citationless statement saying as many as 1 in every 5 people has dyslexia is a little too outlandish I think. Find a source and it would be a very interesting fact.

You are absolutely right -- I've found a somewhat different source (estimates 5-17% rate) and a citation to back it up, and inserted that info where the part you removed was - Abigail Marshall 08:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

General

Just a quick example of why this article needs a major overhaul. It repeats the claims of the discrepancy model in different forms over and over. "Individuals with dyslexia: Have average or above average intelligence, yet may have poor academic achievement." This is very poor. It literally states that someone with dyslexia can't have below average intelligence. Please stop adding rubbish to this artcile. Stick to encyclopedic facts. - Chris

Most of this article needs to be wiped out.

-I agree it's a piece of shit

- Making a few changes to make this page more accessible to dyslexic people.72.185.206.11 07:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The part about how dyslexics can read and write perfectly but still have dyslexia is ridiculous. Of course those who have treated dyslexia may be able to, but no one is diagnosed dyslexic if they have no dyslexic difficulties reading or writing.

It also keeps just talking about "education"? Why doesn't it have the different methods which have been used effectively? The methods are well-established and used in combination in public schools.

In additon, where is the section about protection as a disability? IEP's? 504's? Is it somewhere in the article but the article is so long I just have missed it?

Also, a lot of the information about dyslexia seems to wrongly be mislabeled, describing someone who has comorbid ADD/Dyslexia.

I would edit it but I would wipe most of it out, since a lot of it is misinformed and badly organized. Where are our experts? Meg1064 03:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I just made a few edits to this page and would like to get to know the main editors before I make other changes. I have a fair amout of knowledge on the subject. I have a JD/MBA from Stanford with a Masters Thesis in Learning Disability Law, as well as 30+ years of battle scars fighting for civil rights as an dyslexic learner myself. I run a non-profit in the US, The Initiative for Learning Identities, focusing on adults with LD. We count Sally and Benet Shaywitz, (Dr. Sally Shaywitz is head of the National Institute of Health Center of Learning and Attention at Yale Medical School) as advisors and focus on independence for adults with LD. Please contact me though wikipedia or this board if you have comments on this Newbie's edits. Cheers. benfoss 01:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ben I've also been trying to clean up this page over the past month or so. I say, just keep doing what you're doing and the page will be all the better for it. --Drmarc 01:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. This article should be better than it is, and I'm sure it will be after you work on it. Maybe it needs someone to really organize the article, to separate what is scientically founded and what is more based on personal experience and intuition.Patty Scheel 12:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"Dyslexics are usually above normal intelligence because they have to be able to cope in a world where the other 80-85% of the population is oriented naturally. "

Sorry but I have never heard this before and I frankly am very reluctant to believe it. Where are all the studies showing it?

Also, the statement about the dyslexic being a "three dimensional thinker", while it may have some basis in truth, seems far more reductive and simplistic than the rest of the article. Not being an expert, though, I don't know how to qualify it properly... --Matt McIrvin 14:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, there are so many things said about dyslexia... and the research goes on, too. Max Frisk writes in Ericson 1996 (from Swedish:) "A defective development of the left planum temporale seams to cause dyslexia. In such cases the right hemisphere can become dominant and more developed which may imply an increased creative imagination and artistic talent of the subject (Goldman-Rakic et al.,1984)."

Personally, I find this questionable, but I'd have a look at the source if it was available in my country. If anyone else is interested, it's in Geschwind, N, Galaburda, A M (eds): Cerebral dominance: The biological foundations, pp. 179-194. --Piechjo 13:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Could something about dysorthographia (inability to spell) be added?

Some have disagreed with these findings, however, and believe that while dyslexia may sometimes be inborn it is often attributable to lack of phonics training when learning to read and the preponderance of the whole language system.

I don't know a lot about this issue, but this sentence looks like POV to me. There might be people who say dyslexia is often caused by "a lack of whole language training." --Szyslak 09:29, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Although many biographers claim to have disproved that Einstein was dyslexic, their arguments are based on the premise that because he actually excelled in school, he could therefore not have had a learning disability. "

Didn't Einstein perform poorly in school?

The article on Einstein talks about this. He seems to have been regarded as having some sort of deficit early on, and got in some trouble with liberal-arts subjects later. But there's also a legend that he received poor grades in mathematics which is a result of biographers' confusion over a change in the grading system; he was actually an excellent math student. I'd say the jury is still out on whether this indicates any sort of diagnosable learning disability. --Matt McIrvin 14:26, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes, in a hurry, we misread things.
e.g: We misread Breakfest as Breakfast with a preconcieved notion that it is breakfast.

what is this called ??

-kaysov

Intelligence.

Time and again some portions of my articles have been removed as "copyrighted"!!! Please do not do that again: I indeed pasted it ready-made; however, I pasted it from my own article (http://www.supermemo.com/articles/genius.htm). Please feel free to expand upon this text, but I would appreciate if you would leave this note intact. One reason is that I would not like anyone ever think that I steal material from Wikipedia to write my own articles! I just thought this would be a nice contribution. -- Piotr Wozniak

As a dyslexic, I see my dyslexia as a problem with symetry ie b/d/g/p/q or do/ob/op/go or multiples thereof. I also have left/right dyslexia where i get my directions backwards all the time. -- Mike Dill

If you have trouble with b, d, p, and q, think of how dyslexics feel about the Tengwar of Feanor! --Damian Yerrick

the joke of the dyslexic agnostic - didn't know if he should believe in dog.

...or the dyslexic devil-worshipper who sold his soul to Santa...

If you can read this, you may have dyslexia. --Damian Yerrick

Greetings, I have just signed on as a user and made several edits to the article. My name is Abigail Marshall and I am the author of the book, The Everything Parent's Guide to Children with Dyslexia. (That doesn't make me an expert, but it does mean that I spent a lot of time researching & fact checking, so I am pretty familiar with what can and can't be substantiated about the subject).

I am frustrated somewhat by seeing categorical statements about issues that are subject to debate. So for example I edited a section under "Facts and statistics" which said that *all* current scientific research focuses on the phonological deficit theory of dyslexia to change the reference to "all" to "much", and add some references to some of the other major focuses of research, like magnocellular deficit and cerebellar deficit. (I don't even buy into these theories, but it simply is misleading to ignore this research). Of course I included citations for these. I also added some paragraphs trying to summarize some of the various approaches to dyslexia. Again, I realize that there is a lot of controversy surrounding different theories and approaches, but that certainly is no reason to ignore them.

I think this topic will be improved if users try to word things in a way that acknowledge other points and view. In other words, we can avoid saying "all" research supports X, or there is "no" research to support Y. It seems to me to make more sense to acknowledge the controversy ("some researchers claim") - and if appropriate to create a linked topic to explore the issues related to whatever theory or method is worthy of debate, or to edit an already existing topic.

Anyway, that's how I feel and why I made the initial changes that I did. -- Abigail Marshall 08:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Inborn

Article states conclusively that dyslexia is inborn, implying this is true 100% of the time. Can we really state that definitively? Many people believe it is often (or even always!) attributable to use of the look-say (whole language or whole word) method of teaching children to read instead of phonics.

Reworded to mention that people disagree, but I think it still needs to have the big bold faced sentence that pronounces the "truth" that dyslexia is inborn NPOVed. Jdavidb 18:45, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Doyle Saylor djsaylor@mindspring.com This discussion of dyslexia has some deficits.

First, This article does not clearly come out and say that dyslexia can affect hearing and touch but that is an accepted scientific view of dyslexia. While citing Gazzaniga I wonder why the writer did not also read Margaret Livingstone?

Secondly, this article ignores in visual dyslexia the common difficulty with seeing depth for dyslexics. Hence the larger issue of the magno-cellular pathway and what it does. Therefore the connection to damage arising in Alzheimers wherein the affected person gets lost because they are motion blind is not connected to the same issue that affects dyslexics.

Thirdly, Dyslexics have trouble with web pages that have flash elements in them (animated graphics). A focus strictly on reading therefore can't pick up the disability issues that also affect dyslexics.

Fourth, There is no sense in this paper why some dyslexics seem so bright. This might have been explored by looking at primate evolution and the rise of the color seeing channel in vision (parvo-nuclear). The relative difference between seeing motion and seeing stationary surfaces seems to correspond to what intelligence is usually ascribed to. Correlations to experiments with blind people whose cortex seems to have re-mapped from visual centers to touch centers is highly suggestive of the intelligence factors in Dyslexics.

Fifth, In referring to script issues the author ignores Japanese scripts (Kanji) that are much easier for dyslexics to absorb. All scripts to some extent reproduce sounds, but some scripts are more easily seen than others. Why is this?

Sixth, In describing the areas of the brain where visual processing occurs the sense of visual pathways is much more muddled than need be. A description of the motion sensing areas and the paths from there to the parietal lobe and temporal lobe would make more sense than the current allusions. thanks, Doyle

To Doyle: your comments are insightful and inspiring, but where are your edits to the main article? :-)

Version at the time of writing mentions dyscalculia specifically as being tied to difficulty with reading analog clocks, not because of the numerals but because of the "rotational positioning" involved. I couldn't find anything to corroborate this, and suspect that this isn't part of dyscalculia. Basically, Doyle is right: this article could use some good overhauling by someones knowing their stuffs, pardon me grammar.

Incidentally, why are all these words so friggin' hard to spell? You can't tell me that it's not deliberate, man. Stupid G(r)eeks.

See "Chinese dyslexics have problems of their own" http://www.mirabilis.ca/archives/002117.html http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040830/full/040830-5.html but see response: http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0409&L=anthro-l&F=&S=&P=12758

Dyslexia Parents Resource http://dyslexia-parent.com/

"Dyslexia- A Gift?" by Lillian Jones http://www.bayshoreeducational.com/dyslexia.html

That page is 404'd now, but "The Gift of Dyslexia" is a book by Ron Davis, [1], founder of Davis Dyslexia, owner of dyslexia.com, and somebody probably worth an article. Ojw 22:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC) (warning: paranoid US group with legal support)

" Before the invention of written language, dyslexia didn't exist. People with the

gift of dyslexia were probably the custodians of oral history because of their

excellent ability to memorize and transmit the spoken word." http://www.mlode.com/~ra/ra8/dyslexia.htm

??? http://www.dyslexiacure.com/

Another possible external link: Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic -http://www.rfbd.org/

"5-15% of the population can be diagnosed as suffering from various degrees of dyslexia."

The population of what? US? English-speaking countries? The world?

I don't know, but I've read that Japan has a much lower perccentage. Maybe in Spain as well where the language is much more phonetic.

The article later states that 17-20% of children are dyslexic. Either these two statistics need to be reconciled, or the first (which doesn't cite a source) should be removed. Lebki 4:18, November 8, 2005

A comment

I'm posting this here because I don't know where else to post it. But I have just found an article on Wikipedia where one user is belittling another because he's says that he is dyslexic. My son is dyslexic and I just can't understand how an adult could be so cruel. Jrossman 02:34, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Some people fail to develop at the same emotional pace that most of the rest of the world does just as some of us have trouble reading and writing. Being an adult is a physical age thing and has nothing to do with having good sence or good maners in a public place. At least your son is reciving help and support with his problem.

Einstein discussion

I've removed a large part of the "is he/is he not" discussion about Albert Einstein being dyslexic. It doesn't fit into this article and, while it may contain relevant information, could not easily be worked into his article. If someone can rework it somewhere then that would be good. violet/riga (t) 17:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Three dimensional thinkers?

The dyslexic is a three dimensional thinker.

I encountered this sentence in the article, and it immediately struck me as dubious. I was curious about the basis for this statement, being that it was completely new to me, and I googled dyslexia "three dimensional". The first link that came up where three dimensional refered to a type of thinking or mental ability was this one: [2]. According to this article, although there is a popular belief that dyslexia is accompanied by a compensatory strength in spatial ability, scientific evidence shows otherwise. Granted, this is only one study (I could probably find more) but it is enough that I feel justified in asking for some reference on this statement, and if none can be produced this statement (or the entire paragraph) should be scratched. Now perhaps the reference is there, somewhere among the several references at the bottom of the article. I'm not the only person who finds parts of this article questionable (see comments above on the claim that dyslexics are higher than average intelligence) and without good citations, even if the info is good and backed by science, in the context of this article it sounds like feel-good, armchair cognitive psychology. At least that's what it seems like to me; I can't speak for the others. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 07:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I am Dyslexic, and I am a very visual thinker. According to the Veteran Affairs neurologist, I have strong visual spatial skills. I even scored time bonus points on the final,most difficult design on the block design test. She even told me that I could be an engineer. She wrote that I should be encouraged to find ways to make better use of of my strong visual spatial skills. I think in pictures,visualize nonstop. I picture and visualize everything before I do it. I picture and visualize myself doing things like I am seeing myself in a mirror. I have a vivid imagination. When I read books,I feel like I am watching a movie. Ronald D Davis wrote a book about Dyslexia,and he says that Dyslexics are mainly picture thinkers,and that's true for me. I have Dyspraxia too,and so I have coordination problems..so I don't have the fine motor skills for things like painting,drawing,and sculpture. The problem with Dyslexics is that their minds are way too hard do pin down. IQ tests don't work on a lot of Dyslexics....they definitely don't work on me. I have Dyslexia,Dyspraxia,and inattentive type ADHD. I could see that there could be lack of scientific evidence of Dyslexics have strong 3d visualization abilities. (Satabishara 15:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)).

theory of dyslexia as an inner ear disorder

Hey, I'd like someone qualified to assess the following site, which cites clinical studies demonstrating Dyslexia to be a disorder of the inner-ear, that can be greatly improved by inner-ear medicines designed to improve motion-sickness. If there are no objections, I'll add a line or two about this research in the article (as a theory, of course, not as fact).

The idea is that inner ear problems could cause the focusing and eye-movement problems dyslexics are known for, as well as a difficulty with "stabilizing" letters on a page since the inner ear controls this sort of coordination. Many other dyslexic symptoms can be similarly explained as the product of inner ear abnormalities.

Dyslexia as a CV disorder

Journal abstract (for the brave)

My eight year old son has been through a series of tests, and it looks like he is dyslexic. He has a spelling age of 7 yrs, 00 mths, but a non-verbal MAT score of 14 years 06 months. The thing that caught my eye on this entry, was the reference to an inner ear disorder. For 2 years from the age of 18 mths, my son was almost totally deaf, suffering from (the common condition), glue ear. I wonder if any research has been done investigating whether there is any correlation between dyslexia and glue ear?

I have a history of Auditory Dyslexia. I had a severe ear infection when I was 3 years old. I don't have a history of glue ear. I don't have poor hearing. My hearing is sensitive. When I was 4 years old, the nuns asked what language I spoke. They couldn't understand me. My mother was informed that I wasn't hearing things right for I was turning stuff around when I heard it. Auditory reversals. They told her that people have to slow down when talking to me because information can come to be too fast. I have auditory input speech lags to this day. I need things repeated a lot. A lot of times I get confused by what people say. I can mishear things. I had auditory therapy,speech therapy,and phonics to remediate my Auditory Dyslexia. I also have a history of developmental coordination problems. I had fine motor skills therapy. I saw Dr. Levinson for testing in 2005. I had the testing that was shown on the site except he didn't test me with 3D Optical Scanner. He tested me with 3D Auditory Scanner,and I had abnormal results. To measure auditory blurring,Dr. Levinson devised an instrument capable of speeding up a series of clear sounds until they could no longer be distinguished, with and without an interfering background,thus establishing the auditory blurring speed. The electronystagmography was abnormal showing that I have poor eye tracking,coordination issues. The posturography showed mildly abnormal in all 3 areas that showed that I have problems with balance and sensory integration. The standard neurological tests showed abnormalities. He even noted that I had slow auditory input and mild articulation problems when he was doing neurological testing on me. I took Dr. Levinson's testing to the Veteran Affairs. They gave me testing,and they confirmed that I have abnormal cerebellar system. They gave me neurological testing,and it showed that I have borderline impaired immediate verbal memory and borderline impaired sentence repetition. My immediate visual memory was impaired too. To make a long story short, the Veteran Affairs neurologists said that I have Dyslexia and Dyspraxia.I also have inattentive type ADHD diagnosed in 2004. I want to spend the rest of my life raising awareness about Dyslexia and Dyspraxia. I want to point out about the Auditory Dyslexics. I am tired of people focusing on Dyslexia as visual reversals of issue. I also have speech problems connected to my Dyslexia. Speech delays/problems are early warning signs of Dyslexia. They are listed at International Dyslexia Association site too. (Satabishara 15:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)).

Glue Ear can be a method of aquiring Auditory Processing Disorder APD, and APD is an undrlying cause of dyslexia which many have previously called Auditory dyslexia. dolfrog 00:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please remove the list of celebrities

Amorrow says: I think that the list of celebrities should be reduced to a very small number, if any. 15% of human population says it all. If studies has shown that dyslexia is more prevelant in certain groups, then fine.

Why are all these celebrities listed? Are you just trying to make people who feel they have dyslexia feel better about some perception that they have not accomplished much in their lives? If you are, then you are not being objective. Instead, you are being sucked into problems of people who suffer from dyxlexia, both related and unrelated to their dyslexia. Wikipedia is not here to glamourize dyxlexia. Wikipedia is here to help others understand this specific diagnosis and describe its context in the human population.

The same goes for anything else that makes dyslexics "special" unless it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Shove it somewher else and get it out of this entry. You can add all of the "Dyslexia Support Group" links you want at the bottom of the page.

One other comment: It is inappropriate to "suspect" a living person, even if they are a celebrity, of having dyslexia. If they are still alive, it should be considered their private medical data until they have released the information to the public.

I think it is appropriate to list celeberties, especially since many articles that have brain disorders (Schizophrenia, Bipolar disorder, etc.) have a list. --Admiral Roo 13:22, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, 15% is a huge number. Perhaps a few notable examples would be fine (for example people who overcame dyslexia and prevailed or people who were greatly affected by it) but if you list 15% of the celebrities out there, you will have a list of a few thousdand names! I also agree that unless it is made publicly known that someone is dyslexic by himself of his doctor, it doesn't belong on wikipedia. Maybe us weekly...

66.75.49.213 12:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

To Amorrow, Wikipedia is for knowledge. Having celebrities on here is appropriate. It's a list of people who have dyslexica. If people know something about them then they can put a face on it and be able to see what it is and not just medical gabble.

amorrow: "Wikipedia is not here to glamourize dyxlexia."

It's not but it can be fair, and not looked as a disease as the page makes it out to be. -- Hpbenton 07:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

To Amorrow: I was diognised with dyslexia (if it's spelled like that) when I was 8 years old, and having felt stupid, and less worth my entire life, YES it feels good to know that there are others with this "disease" that have managed to succeed with something in their life. Furhtermore, I think that anyone who does not know how it is to live with this impairment ever day, feeling less intelligente than everybody else, should comment on anything within this area, because feeling appriciation was, and is still a big part of making me feel better, and it is probably still so for many.

Direction difficulty

Am I correct in believing that difficulty with directions is common in dyslexics? My father is a dyslexic, and he has no sense of left vs. right, etc. Would this count as a form of dyslexia, is this just a part of dyslexia, is this a different disorder altoghether, or am I just not looking close enough at the article? Idekii 02:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure if it is true for all dyslexia sufferurs, but I myself do have a problem telling left from right. --Admiral Roo 13:20, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Dyslexics don't suffer from a poor sence of direction. The reason that some confuse Left and Right is because they are words that are commonly learnt at the same time. Like Black and White, which many dyslexics confuse when they first learn them.

My brother, now 38 and with whom I spent I great deal of time with grow up, definitely has a very hard time distinguishing left from right. I think I am a better expert on the subject than most anyone, as having been able to observe his diffuculties for decades. When asked to "make a left turn" he hestitates and commonly makes a right turn. When asked to pick up an object on the right he will mkae the same hesitation and commonly pick up the item on the left. He can open doors with knobs by twisting them to the right, and tighten screws and other turnable fasteners correctly. The problem maybe linked to his word association, but what else can we use to communicate relative directions? Sysrpl 09:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Quality of this article (including a discussion of whether dyslexia really exists)

The majority of the article as it stands is extremely POV with a large amount of unsubstatiated conjecture and downright untruths about dyslexia. It seems to suggest that being dyslexic is actually quite an attractive condition, by attributing it to all kinds of virtues such as high IQ, ability at art/engineering/etc, verbal skill and so on.

The section on Common Characteristics is particularly misleading, whilst there is no mention at all of the recent controversy surrounding the diagnosis of dislexia in the first place--Fergie 12:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

That link to the article sounds a lot like Anti-psychiatry to me. Dyslexia does exist. While it is not an attractive condition, I can tell you it is not that disableing of a condition. At least not to me. --Admiral Roo 13:25, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Please read the link- he is making the point that a) no common method of diagnosis has been agreed and b) Dyslexia is not statistically associated with elevated abilities in other fields (such as art, architechture, music and so on). Both good points that could be covered in this (wikipedia) article.--Fergie 18:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

What is the state of current research? One expert interviewed in a recent Dispatches programme on Channel 4 in the UK stated he could not tell dyslexics from other poor readers, implying that dyslexia is a myth. For all I know, this is a very minority opinion but if it isn't, the article is severely flawed.

I saw that Dispatches documentary too. Fascinating show. It showed that 99% of the population has no reading problem as long as they are taught well. Some may need one-to-one tuition, but even those children who are diagnosed as "dyslexic" who are taught simple phonics (matching symbols with sounds, i.e. straightforward traditional education) by well trained teachers on a one-to-one basis do up to 8 times better than those who are given specialised dyslexia tuition. This research was done by researchers at Durhan and York Universities at a high standard. Dyslexia does not exist. This article should be heavily rewritten to reflect all the latest research. Wikipedia should reflect the controversies also, but even before seeing that documentary, it was clear this article is extremely biased. --Aaron McDaid 12:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I would like to ask those of you who think dyslexia is not a real disorder why you think it is not a real disorder. I think I am good proof that it does exist. --Admiral Roo 12:51, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

There is no scientific research backing it up. In particular, the fact that a patient says he or she has a disease doesn't prove anything. Patients are not experts on their own condition. Wouldn't I be right in thinking that doctors are advised not to treat or diagnose themselves? I'm not denying the existence of intelligent children who have difficulty reading. Instead I am calling for those children who can't read to be given the best help as advised by science. And the latest science is that of those who have difficulty reading, there is no difference between the intelligent ones and the less intelligent ones. There is not a shred of evidence showing that the specialist treatments recommended for dyslexics actually show any benefit whatsoever. The evidence clearly shows that all children with reading difficulties, regardless of intelligence (or diagnosis of dyslexia), benefit most from simple old-fashioned teaching by good teachers. I'm not denying that many children have a problem reading, just pointing out that the whole theory built up around "dyslexia" is false, and never had much evidence backing it up. One of the main theories around dyslexia surrounds the claim by many patients that they have difficulty with their vision, such as jumbling up or reversing letters and numbers. Science should never take the subject's word for it, instead it should do experiments. The research shown on the documentary shows that children diagnosed with dyslexia were just as good at copying down complicated symbols and diagrams as non-dyslexics (the symbols in question were the Hebrew alphabet). If tuition programmes not designed for dyslexics are better at improving the reading ability of dyslexics than those programmes designed for dyslexics, and if so-called dyslexics respond very well to one-to-one expert tuition on the basics of reading (eventually being able to read as well as their non-"dyslexic" peers), then dyslexia cannot exist. The burden of proof is, and always has been, on the dyslexia faithful (I know 'faithful' isn't an accurate word, please forgive me) to scientifically prove the existence of a condition which is provably different from general reading difficulty. The Dyslexia Myth is getting in the way of helping these children. The only way the term "dyslexia" can continue in future is if it's redefined to mean general "reading difficulty". The British Dyslexia Assocation admitted that it is not connected to intelligence in any way. --Aaron McDaid 14:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

There should certainly be some mention of the claims that it doesn't exist, and the best way to start might be to list some references here, then work them into the article. violet/riga (t) 22:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Aron, are you assuming that all dyslexia suffers can't read? Thier are more types then not being able to read. For instance, I can't spell, but I read college level stuff. As for patients not being the experts in thier own condition is wrong. Read up on what Dr. Torry says in his book Surviving Schizophrenia, for he explains it better then I ever can when he says that ppl with a disorder(s) are experts at thier disorder(s). --Admiral Roo 03:08, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Dyslexia is not a myth. I have it along with Dyspraxia and inattentive type ADHD. I had auditory reversals and had problems listening to rapid speech. That led me to have speech reversals and disorganized speech. This was acknowledged by specialists when I was 4 years old. They told my mother that it was a form of Dyslexia. I was trained to listen better and had speech therapy. Then I had phonics. I was in special education for 3 years. I wasn't speaking words until I was 2 years old. I didn't speak clearly nor in full sentences until I was almost 8 years old I have history of cluttering. I also have auditory input speech lags which have to do with delays in understanding what people say. I still have problems with memory in regards to what I read and hear. I have to read stuff repeatedly. It's like after I read it,my mind goes blank. I have to deeply immerse myself in the material as well as using mental imagery to help me understand what I read. I was recently confirmed by Veteran Affairs neurolopsychological testing to have impaired immediate verbal memory,borderline impaired verbal memory,and borderline impaired sentence repetition. I also was confirmed to have eye coordination,tracking issues including poor saccadic and pursuit movements. The Veteran Affairs neurologists confirmed that I have Dyslexia and Dyspraxia after neurological and neuropsychological testing. It confirmed the testing that I had by Dr Levinson that included abnormal electronystagmography,abnormal posturography,abnormal neurological testing which included noted speech and auditory processing issues,and abnormal 3D Auditory Scanner which led to his diagnosing me as having cerebellar vestibular dysfunction which he believes is root of Dyslexic Syndrome. I have problems with directions as well as sense of time. I have problems with disorganization. Like Dyslexics,I am a very visual thinker. I have strong visual spatial skills. I think mainly in pictures instead of words to the point that I visualize things nonstop. I visualize everything before I do it. I even visualize myself doing things like I am seeing myself in the mirror. My Dyspraxia is related to my coordination of my speech as well as overall coordination, poor short term memory,forgetful,disorganized,highly sensitive/emotional,poor sense of direction,poor sense time,problems with remembering sequences(including when people show me stuff,not just reading. I am slow to get stuff at first. I know what it's like to be called "retard" by other kids for my Dyslexic,Dyspraxic difficulties and being in special ed. I know what it's like for my coworkers to think that I am stupid and treat me that way. I know what it's like to be misdiagnosed by psychiatrists because of my speech irregularities. Dyslexia is no myth. Dyspraxia isn't either. You have to have the conditions to totally understand. If you don't,you won't understand. (Satabishara 16:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)).

I know that many of those diagnosed with dyslexia can read. If anything, that fact proves how meaningless the term dyslexia really is. It's now applied to anyone who has any difficulty with almost anything. The article itself admits how inconsistent the symptoms are. It states that they get worse under pressure - but isn't that entirely normal for any person? Looking at the list of characteristics, the article says that most dyslexics will suffer about 10 of them. But there are 37 characteristics listed there, and each of them is so vague that I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of the population suffer from 10 of them. This means that most people are dyslexic! Many of the characteristics are of the form "Can be an extra deep or light sleeper". If you include both extremes like that, then you're saying that the only way somebody can be non-dyslexic is if they are completely average in every way. That's obviously nonsense, it'd be a very rare person who would be average in every way, the odds of it are very slim.

If some people suffer from a variety of symptoms, there's no reason to think the symptoms are related - somebody with cancer might also have excema, but that's no reason to say there's a connection.

If I remember correctly, the main research mentioned in the documentary has been completed but has not been published formally yet (and peer-reviewed et cetera), we may have to wait some time unfortunately. But I might look around for other studies mentioned in the programme and post references if I can find any.

However, the onus is on those who want to prove dyslexia exists. It's not just enough to draw up a list of symptoms and then find a group of people who match that. Out of 6 billion people, you can find somebody with pretty much any list of symptoms. If you make up a disease or disorder, you have to prove it exists, not expect critics to disprove it. Otherwise any crank could make up a new disorder every day, and expect to be taken seriously just because nobody bothered to disprove it's existence.

The first sentence of the article says In its most common and apparent form, it is a disability in which a person's reading and/or writing ability is significantly lower than that which would be predicted by his or her general level of intelligence.

However, reading is actually performed by a relatively primitive part of the brain (just as with spoken conversation), so there is no reason that there should be a link with higher brain functions and intelligence. You wouldn't be surprised at a highly intelligence person who wasn't any good at sports (hand-eye coordination et cetera, primitive brain functions), so why should you make an assumption that they should be good readers? (reading is another primitive brain function).

Perhaps the whole dyslexia myth is a result of the simple mistaken assumption that reading is a high level brain function and should be predictable from their intelligence level. Now that I think of it, why should it be predictable is such a way even if that assumption was true? The "higher" brain functions might be quite separate anyway. Being good at all the "higher" functions might be just as much a coincidence as being good at some and not others. --Aaron McDaid 14:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I've found this New Scientist article about research by the Institute of Phychiatry in London which reports that learning difficulties including dyslexia are not special distinct conditions after all. Learning disabilities or abilities seem to be the result of the cumulative effects of a very large number of genes and environmental effects (as opposed to a small number, which would be consistent with learning difficulties really being definite specific disorders). This article is a bit light on details but the results are typical of the sort of research that was mentioned on the Dispatches documentary.

As would be expected, everybody has a different set of genes and a different environment so every individual is unique. In my own opinion, the variation in mental abilities, including those classified as dyslexia or other learning difficulties, is entirely what would be expected by an almost random distribution of genes and environmental factors. For example, if 20% of the population has higher than average intelligence, and also 20% has reading problems, then there is no surprise that 4% (4% = 20% of 20%) of the population are intelligent people with reading problems. Of course, the genes and environment probably aren't distributed randomly, for example, having good genes means the parents have good genes which might mean they do well in life meaning the child gets a good environment.

Being dyslexic is no more the result of a mental disorder than being highly intelligent, or even of having exactly average intelligence!

Here's more on the content of the documentary itself, written by the producer of the documentary. From the linked article: "The biggest shock was that the 'dyslexia myth' story which sounded so controversial when I first started the research, turned out not to be controversial at all to the experts. The idea that the common understanding of dyslexia is a myth was startling when I first heard it. Yet I found it was a view shared by every academic that I talked to. The scientific consensus about it is overwhelming."

--Aaron McDaid 17:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

There is of course also the possibility that dyslexia does exist as a condition (or perhaps like schizophrenia, as one of several distinct conditions with some similarity in symptoms), but that the vast majority of those who are diagnosed with dyslexia have been misdiagnosed. This would explain the difficulty in finding any difference in general characteristics of individuals or in effective treatments between those who have been diagnosed as dyslexic and those who have not; the sample of "dyslexics" has been contaminated by a large number of individuals who should be in the other category. I am inclined to believe that something like this must be the case, as 1) it is hard to believe that there does not exist a neurological condition which would effect only the ability to read, given the large number of more universally accepted conditions that affect a similarly narrow area of functioning, 2) at one time (perhaps before misdiagnosis became so common, if this is the case) dyslexia was more widely accepted as a real condition, and 3) it is obvious to me how such misdiagnosis could have become commonplace. To be blunt, 50 years ago, if Junior was having problems in school, you took him to a specialistic, and the doctor said he did not suffer from dyslexia, that was that. Today, you've picked up a penchant for armchair psychology from watching the news (or reading Dyslexia for Dummies), and besides, you know your kid's smarter than average despite all evidence to the contrary (whether it is just because your style of parenting is different than your parents', or because that's what they teach him in school), so you know Junior is dyslexic, no matter what Dr. A may say. You take him to Dr. B and Dr. C and finally doctor Dr. D, who was recommended by a friend whose kid is also "dyslexic". End result: Junior is "dyslexic", whether or not he really is. Granted, this situation could happen even if there is no such thing as dyslexia, and I hope I'm not needlessly offending anyone by going off on this tangent, but I think it makes it clear that there is some merit to considering the possibility of widespread misdiagnosis. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 08:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Dyslexia is currently diagnosed by looking for people whose reading levels are out of line with their IQs. This is called the discrepancy model. Arguing over "dyslexia" is difficult as it doesn't have a clear definition. However, the current system gives extra reading assistance to a certain group of people based on the discrepancy model. There have been studies that have shown that giving this reading assistance to people with reading difficulties is equally beneficial to people regardless of IQ. The discrepancy model is therefore discriminating against people with lower IQs, these people would benefit equally well to those labelled as dyslexia. Brain scans also show exactly the same problems in both IQ groups. I am not saying that we shouldn't use the term dyslexia for a group of people with special-learning-difficulties but if we decide we do want to use the dyslexic term we should apply it regardless of IQ. My mother works in the area of giving teaching assistance and applying the current dyslexia discrepancy model in the UK (statementing). I could probably find internet sources from the leading experts in the field. I think we should state that the labelling of people as dyslexic based on the discrepancy model is now considered to be unhelpful and possibly discriminatory. It should probably also be mentioned that due to the fact that the term dyslexia has always been associated with the discrepancy model and not just with "specific reading difficulties" some people are arguing that "dyslexia" as it is currently defined does not really exist.

Umm there seems to be alot of arm-chair specialists, lets be blunt if you make a statement you must be able to quantify it. That is you should use decent resources, such as published papers opposed to what you watched on telly that night. To state that Dyslexics are either, more, less, or average in regard to intelligence must quantifible.

Further more if 'believe' that dyslexia doesn't exist YOU must also quantify it as well! Not just make it up in some pseudoempirical-rationalist manner. Again quantify with real papers, not just T.V., or lunch room discussions.

In 'general characteristics' the line "Appears to be bright, seemingly highly intelligent, and articulate but unable to read, write, or spell at grade level." Also needs a neutral term for 'grade level' as not all english speakers have a understanding of the U.S.A. educational system.

Mark

There is a real problem with the way reading in general is viewed and the way dyslexia is diagnosed.

Firstly, the very term 'dyslexia' implies a deficiency in the biological systems involved in reading. It assumes that everyone should be able to read black text on a white background - anyone who can't, must have a deficiency. However, no system in the body has ever evolved to read. Reading requires small sharp movements across a tight, regular array of symbols - a type of movement that is required nowhere else in nature so that there has been no selective pressure for it to evolve.

This is compounded by a lack of understanding of the biophysics of the eye. Light is detected on the retina when it reacts with pigment molecules in the receptor cells. This pigment molecule can be folded in three different ways which react with different frequencies of light - broadly corresponding to red, green and blue light. As the number, and size of these cells varies from person to person, different people can have vastly different experiences when looking at black text on a white background (white light being composed of red, green and blue light). This can lead to poor quality data collection which makes it hard to accurately detect the edges of letters and hence more difficult for the eyes to accurately move to the next point of fixation and makes reading stressful and inefficient. If the eyes are unable to make a solid fixation, you end up with the confusion between b's and d's etc because although the eyes detect the shapes o and l they do not detect the position correctly so you either get b (lo) or d (ol).

By measuring the optimum background colour for an individual, stimulation of the receptor cells can be maximised and data gathering by the eyes can be increased in both speed and efficiency so the stress caused by reading is massively reduced. This can leave people who are "dyslexic" reading faster than those who are supposedly normal.

Secondly, there is a huge disparity in the diagnosis of dyslexia between different social groups. Dyslexia is far more commonly diagnosed in the children of well-off, middle-class families than in those from poorer backgrounds. The expectations of a parent for their child's success also rests on the misconception that comfortable, highly efficient reading of black text on a white background is the norm. Well educated, efficient readers expect their children to perform as they did and if they don't then the term 'dyslexia' has more acceptable connotations than 'not good academically'.

This is not to say that there isn't a section of the populace that have difficulty reading that is unrelated to intelligence, but rather that this group should not necessarily be differentiated from the rest of the population with the black-&-white categories of dyslexic and non-dyslexic. If you look at reading speeds across the population, you find that there isn't a gap between dyslexics and non-dyslexics, but a spread where the speeds of the fastest dyslexics overlap with those of the slowest non-dyslexics. This suggests that they are not suffering from a distinct, definable condition, but are simply the extreme end of a normal distribution. This is backed up by the fact that non-dyslexics also show improved reading speeds when the background colour is optimised for the individual, but the gains shown are not as high as for those originally diagnosed dyslexic.

Steve

Another way at looking at things is in the different part of the brain which handle certain functions. In most people the primary language processing areas (Broca's area and Wernicke's area) are located in the left cerebral hemisphere. For some dyslexics they actually do some language processing in the right hand side (reflecting a high correlation between left handed people and dyslexia). This can account for some of the observed problems, using non specalised areas for parsing symbols. It might also acount for some of the benifits of dyslexia, (many dyslexics I know think of it more as a different way of thinking than a disability). Another distinction not mentioned in the article is between visual and auditory dyslexics which are very different phenomena. I've written some more on this at [3] but the essay did not really get as far as dyslexia. --Salix alba (talk) 12:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: benefits of dyslexia (different way of thinking) - this may tie in with some research we've done examining eye movement during text/number tasks involving itterative arrays and graphical tasks that don't require itterative movements. When reading, the eyes of the dyslexic group move out of synch with each other and cannot maintain a steady fixation or make accurate saccades. Interestingly, we found that a significant proportion of the dyslexic group out-performed the non-dyslexic group when it came to the graphical tasks and when performing these tasks, the dyslexic group showed very synchronised eye movement and steady fixations just as the non-dyslexic group. It would be interesting to see if a "deficit" in itterative text processing correlates at all with an "improved" ability at graphical information processing. However, to draw any useful conclusions, you'd need some kind of standard distribution to compare the results against.--SteveQ 13:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Most interesting, do you have a website/publications? Myself I've always been drawn to graphics/geometry and there is a contriversal book, "Drawing on the right side of the brain" which makes a strong case for spatial skills being located in the right hand hemisphere. I'd really like to find the time to really review the current litature on the subject for which goes a lot further than this article, it might be worth having a look at Lateralization of brain function. --Salix alba (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Our website is here - it looks nasty, I know, but there are some articles under the "Science" section that explain what we do. --SteveQ 11:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge with learning disability?

Wikipedia also has an entry for learning disability, of which dyslexia is one kind. - 130.132.246.83 02:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC) jb - sorry, didn't log in.

The topic seems to stand on its own pretty well. --Jtalledo (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I find it hard to accept that reading trouble which is not a learning disability must not be called dyslexia. What are we to call it? My Random House Unabridged Dictionary calls it "an impairment of the ability to read due to a brain defect", and gives dys- + lex(is) + -ia as its etymology. To me, that implies that the word is applicable to conditions which aren't related at all to learning (not even learning how to read), but only to reading -- that is, the practice of reading. (The dictionary is a bit old, and no doubt, our understanding of what occurs within and without the brain has grown more sophisticated since it was compiled.) --D021317c 11:55, 28 May 2006 (EDT)

Irony

Does anyone find it ironic that the Dyslexia page has a {{cleanup}} tag on it. :) - UnlimitedAccess 17:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I know that you dont men to be but your comment is offensive. It was me that put up the tag. The grammer and spelling of the article is fine (perfect). What is not fine are the many unsubstantiated factoids scattered about all over the place. In particular with reference to symptoms and diagnosis--Fergie 09:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Offensive? I have dyslexia and I didnt find it offensive, it's a fact most forms of Dyslexia involve poor writing, I thought it was an apt joke. :P - UnlimitedAccess 10:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry - I found it amusing too! violet/riga (t) 22:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Dyslexia as a result of brain lesion

When I read this article, I was quite surprised that dyslexia was labelled a learning disorder right away, although there are many well examined cases of dyslexia as a result of brain lesion and those cases are apt to reveal much more about the nature of writing and how we associate language with visual symbols than the phenomenon of dyslexia as a learning disability, such as which strategies can be applied to process which sort of writing system. My suggestion is therefore to shorten the learning disorder part and to extend the article by a section about the findings of research on dyslexia as result of brain lesions. Any spelling errors in this comment are not due to dyslexia but to the fact that the author is not a native speaker of this language Watasenia 12:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

A note should be put in somewhere distinguishing acquired dyslexia, which is due to brain damage occurring during the lifetime, from developmental dyslexia, the condition which may be partly genetic that arises in children without brain damage. The article currently seems to only mention developmental dyslexia. Unless someone else does it first, I will try to remember to get onto it once my exams are over. --Nzbassist 06:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the text at the top to make this distinction. The term "dyslexia" is typically reserved for developmental cases. Alexia is used to refer to acquired cases (reading impairment due to brain damage). There is a link to alexia for people looking for information on it.--Drmarc 04:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed controversial edit

I removed the following edit, as it seems to go against the rest of the article. Please do not restore it without achieving consensus on this talk page first. Thank you! --Ashenai (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

===The Dyslexia Myth===

A recent research report has found that in reality, Dyslexia cannot be proven to exist in any scientific basis. [[Channel 4]] in the UK reported this in a documentary. 'The Dyslexia Myth' argues that the common understanding of dyslexia is not only false but makes it more difficult to provide the reading help that hundreds of thousands of children desperately need.

Now that's comedy

Did you know that if you type in Dyslexia backwards (aixelsyd) it redirects to the dyslexia page? I find that pretty amusing.

Tongo Zitheroo Ketchill

Dislexyia too. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 09:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Debate and Controversy

I've just added a new section on the debate and controversy over dyslexia, it's definition and cause. I'm trying to fairly describe the alternative viewpoints. The rest of the article should be used to support or contradict the views. Strictly speaking a 'controversy about dyslexia' is different from 'dyslexia' and the important thing is to fairly represent the alternative views, not immediately discuss the merits of the views. With this new section, readers will be able to read the many POV statements in the rest of the article (varied POV statements they are too) with the due caution, enabling the rest of the article to openly discuss the subject without us having to struggle over each little bit of the article. --Aaron McDaid 17:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Ocatecir posted a reference to statements made by Julian Elliot quoted in Daily Mail article, but it seemed kind of inflammatory, so I checked the original Times article, which does not contain the statements attributed to Elliot in the Daily Mail article. Elliot (who is male, not female) did NOT say that dyslexia is a matter of parents making "excuses for a child's lack of intelligence or laziness" - rather, Elliot said: "“After years of working with parents I have seen how they don’t want their child to be considered lazy, thick or stupid. If they get called this medically diagnosed term, dyslexic, then it is a signal to all that it’s not to do with intelligence." (emphasis mine). It is a big stretch to move from "parent doesn't want their kid thought to be stupid" to "parent making excuses because kid is stupid." I think Elliot is trying to say that he doesn't think dyslexia is a medical disorder, but rather that he thinks it is simply a problem with learning to read. Elliot has complained about being misunderstood in the past, and has NOT equated reading difficulty with lack of intelligence; on the contrary, he has said: "Amongst children who struggle to read, you find some with a high IQ, some in the middle and some with a low IQ." See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/parents/story/0,,1564251,00.html In the interest of accuracy, I the link to the Times article Armarshall 09:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The Characteristics section

There were are a number of questions asked about the accuracy of the Characteristics section in the article. They are now all brought together in this part of the talk page. --Aaron McDaid 00:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The characteristics section is still nonsense. The 30-odd characteristics listed are so vague and general that it's certain that the vast majority of the population will have at least 10 of them, making them a 'dyslexic' according to this article.

Ronald D Davis is not a reliable source - he runs a company called the 'Davis Dyslexia Association' so obviously has a vested interest. Please find a list from a published journal or something like that or remove it. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 12:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah it says dyslexia at the top is a reading disablility, maybe this is the correct definition by some way or another, but I dont think it is. Ive been diagnosed dyslexic (several times lol) but I have never had any problem with reading, in fact In my youth I had a reading age twice my age, and my vocablulary/vocabulary IQ, was shown to be well above average when I was tested. Im not trying to boast, Im just trying to say that I think dyslexia definitevly classed as a reading disablity is not the case, as I myslef can testify to that, In fact I have several of the symptoms mentiones (spelling issues, I found it had to distinguish between p and q in my youth, used to have left/right issues until I learnt a neat hand trick xD, handwriting issues, organisation issues, co-ordination issues) but I hvae never suffered from any delayed reading capablity, so unless this is just purely originla research I think it may be more acurate to say 'dyslexia is defined by a number of symptoms' instead of saying something like 'dyslexia is a reading disability'.

Compensation Stratergies

Speaking as a dyslexic I know I do use compensation stratergies but why link it to low self esteem?

Bedwetting Section

Concerns from a dyslexic friend about this section. Is this confirmed by a person as a specific resultof dyslexia?? Or is it the result of vandalism

Thanks foryour time...

Philipwhiuk 13:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

None of the information in the Characteristics section has been scientifically verified. The characteristics probably cover most of the population, dyslexic or not.

--Aaron McDaid 14:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Common characteristics of dylexia

Would anybody have any objection to swapping out the current, innacurate, "common characteristics of dyslexia" section with a more universally accepted list of symptoms such as this (British Dyslexic Association)?--Fergie 13:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure that is the correct link? When I click on it I am prompted to provide a username and password. Nautile 20:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

General characteristics?

Aside from the first general characteristic (Appears to be bright, seemingly highly intelligent, and articulate but unable to read, write, or spell at grade level) the rest seem irelevant. Any child with a big imagination and a high IQ generally acts tha way the rest of the characteristics say. 82.76.30.78 08:22, 15 September 2005

True

Personality Assumptions

"Strong sense of justice; emotionally sensitive; strives for perfection." What? Just what is he basing this on? -Evil Dyslexic

Sounds like a category from Myers-Briggs Personality Inventory -- possibly "INFP". Certainly has nothing to do with Dyslexia, as far as I know. Brian Pearson 05:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this doscisson beings or ends... How do Dyslexics act when they ain't getting truth to a person. I'm Dyslexic but I want to know if my actions is me getting peed off and my communication goes down and I get more nasty.

Basicaly i was complaining about someone bullying me and i left i was getting patted on the head and told to go off.. User:Angel LaHash 18:21BST, 3 April 2007

Public Support

Because I'm a callow idiot, I edited this page so that it reads, The child may have trouble distinguishing between the letters "b," "d," "q" and "p."

I believe I added the letter Q. I apologize. I am also a dyslexic. It has taken me too long to say anything of this edit. (I should have commented first in the place.) Thank you for your time. 65.7.232.42 03:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed controversial edit

Viewpoints were also put forward from same dubious Channel 4 documentary.

Other languages

This article keeps referring to english speaking dyslexics. I have read in many places, including wikipedia articles as well as published writing that amongst speakers of other languages (such as spanish) which have much more regular spelling than english, dyslexia is less common. I don't have sources to back this up, but if someone else knows ----about this topic and can verify it, could you please contribute to the article? thanks

can different languages cure dyslexic since the brain works differenly for everyone? is it possible for someone who has english dyslexic to excell in chinese, and for someone who has chinese dyslexic to excell in english? (or other languages). The two languages are opposite to each other: chinese uses logogram to associate to an object(or meaning), while english uses alphabets where each symbol primarily represents a sound or a combination of sounds. chinese is harder to learn since you have to memorize thousands of characters, but once you master it...(what happends then??). Plus chinese fonts are more organized on paper. English on the other hand has only 26 alphabets to memorize, but the difficulties comes from spelling (as you can tell from my spelling errors). Japanese has a combination of characters (kanji) and alphabets (hitagona, kitakona). can this be the reason why the japaneses are doing so well in schools (personal opinion)?
humans eyes tend to count numbers when we see more then four dots (some three). thats why dices are limited by three rows max.
example: How many dots
... (no count, you know its three just by looking)

...... (your eyes need to count)

example 2:
$100,000,000

$3000000

i often have difficulty reading words more than six alphabets, it slows my reading speed dramatically. thankfully, I was able to over come this with text-to-speech softwares.
i've googled "chinese dyslexic" and found this page pretty interesting.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1310286,00.html
Pseudohan 04:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. It had not occurred to me this was possible. Brian Pearson 05:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

My chinese instructor said the same thing as this article. --83.221.136.35 21:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right --- some of the languages that seem to have fewer people with reading problems in general are Italian, Spanish, and Hebrew. This has everything to do with the regularity of the orthography of the language --- that is, how consistently individual sounds are represented by the same grapheme (a grapheme is a letter or letter combination that represents one sound -- t is a grapheme, th is also a grapheme). Whoever stated (below) that there is no relationship between regular spelling and dyslexia is, unfortunately, quite incorrect.

The International Dyslexia Association has published a substantial amount of research in this area, if you want to go look it up. They frequently publish papers by foreign nationals studying dyslexia-related topics in their countries -- Spanish, Dutsch, German, etc. You can get free access to many articles from their journal, Annals of Dyslexia, Here's a link to the top level findarticles.com page of Annals of Dyslexia:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3809

The Journal also includes research about reading difficulties in languages that use character, rather than alphabetic, writing, such as Chinese and Japanese.

smoran 06:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No, these 2 Factors are nor related to each other.. It's probably rather the amount of heavy metals like mercury, vaccines, and other enviroment factors which cause the gap. These country's in the south where people usually talk spain, are far less poluted and offer more healthy living conditions...

Im not sure you know this, but dyslexia isn;t a disability caused from brain damage caused by things like chemical pollutants, it is infact more to do with the crossing of information from the cerebral hemispheres (left right issues, co-ordination issues). Dyslexia may also be caused by unsual growth of certain areas of the brain, e.g. the language section of the brain is smaller whilst the mathematics part of the brain is larger (as possibly was in Einstein), it isn't the same as retardation that can be caused by brain damage. PS I agree with the statements above, dyslexia is not 'caused' however by learning certain languages, it is more easily diagnosed when learning languages such as English, which are harder to learn than Spanish (I can testify to this being a English dyslexic who has learnt how to speak Spanish). I supose that certain languages 'click' with many dyslexics, as dyslexics often (apparantly according to some research) have the same perceptions on what is easy or not easy to understand, probably to do with phonetics and gramatical complexity. E.g. in Spanish the gramar may even make more sense to a dyslexic (as In a snse it is back to front to English grammar) than possibly another person (in some cases), whilst English gramar may seem back to front from a dyslexic's perception.172.206.11.173 10:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Updated page April 11 06.

Inspired by the previous contribution “Debate and Controversy” the subject of the documentary was introduced. This was an attempt to present the same arguments and information in a more concise way, also adding creditability by citing the work and adding a bibliography. It was also placed at the end of the article as documentary does largely address public support. Since the article is addressing the future of dyslexia it should appear at the end of the article as it would in an essay conclusion.

Martin Lambert.

Updated April 12

It appears "The Dyslexic Myth" has resulted in this article to have many unsupported claims and conjecture. An attempt to create a bias readers by attempting to tell them how to interpret studies becomes clear. The most disappointing attempt to create prejudice is seen in the characteristic trait, where all the positive ones had been removed leaving only the ones that could create prejudice.

Removed -hypotheses, redundant data, unsupported claims, removed unsupported speculation and conjecture. removed leading sentences with suggested meanings. If a study is sone and the results are presented unless the study suggest where this leads we can let people think for themselves. At one point a new theory is introduced in as though it belongs to a prior one. The separation is made clear. Removed unsupported opinion of what studies may mean. For General Characteristics stated source and pointed out this is the sources argument. Included all his suggested traits not just ones that are negative, the old way appeared to be intended to leave a negative bias. Dyslexic Myth moved under public support and added that the British Governments findings on Dec 7th of 2005 by the House of Lords has confirmed Dyslexia is not a myth.

Removed article on controversy. April 26th

Documentaries are commercial products made and sold for entertainment value some times information value, they are interesting ways and easy ways to learn info but they are designed to entertain as well as inform hopefully. If you want to use the arguments presented in the documentaries’ please find, their scholarly sources that have went through the peer review process that are not hypotheses. As anyone who has studied film at an academic level will know all films including documentaries are biased. Thus, by using a documentary to present information you are presenting a bias instead of analytical or critical thinking.

With roughly 100 years of research into dyslexia many papers and even documentaries have been developed. Most of which has successfully gone through the peer review process and have been accepted as creditable both by the academic world and various governments as seen through policies made discussing Dyslexia. For one single documentary to have an entire paragraph is questionable in this article. This documentry represents less than 1% of the studies on the subject.It becomes even more questionable when we see that the documentary, primary sources of information have yet to successfully go through the peer review process. Even more so when we see it is primarily based on hypotheses as to theory. The ideas’ presented in the transcripts of the document are largely based on observation and not scientific research. Frankly simply mentioning that the “In a report on the House of Lords Dyslexia debate which took place on Wednesday 7 December is now available the Government confirms dyslexia is not a myth.” is more than should really appear if this is to be a creditable article.

After reading the transcript of the show it is clear that like most documentaries and even papers it is attempting to prove a point its bias is very clear. However after reading articles on the “evidence” from the documentary it becomes clear that a good portion of the “evidence” has been unable to achieve scholarly levels even by scholars as the articles and hypothesis (many ideas presented are hypotheses and not theories) have yet to make it through the peer review process. The documentary largely acts as a tool for individuals to put forward arguments that they are unable to creditably put forward in the academic world.

Stop removing reference to controversial documentary

User:69.199.242.181,

Please sign your comments in talk pages with ~~~~.
Please provide edit summaries when doing something drastic like removing an entire section, especially if the section is controversial.
Please provide meaningful section titles in talk pages—"Updated page April 11 06." does not summarise what the section is about.
I am going to reinstate the section on the grounds that it has been published by reliable and reputable sources. Although not as authoritative as a peer-reviewed academic paper, it is out there, and it is controversial, so this article would be incomplete without it.
I agree with your comment about the sentence regarding the House of Lords, and therefore I will leave it out.

PizzaMargherita 21:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I just undid your second revert, which again lacked of an edit summary. Remember the Three revert rule, and please discuss here if you have any arguments. PizzaMargherita 21:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I also find it ironic how, contrary to the "Controversy" section that you keep removing, the claims in the section "Facts and statistics" do not offer any references. PizzaMargherita 22:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

When reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources, I suspect you failed to consider the headings: Avoid citing the popular press, Evaluating sources, and Cite peer-reviewed scientific publications and check community consensus. All of these suggest that the documentary should not be included in the article. However seeing that the "Holocaust Myth" is covered in Wikipedia’s Holocaust section, there is little point to continue this further. I trust as it stands most people can choose for them selves how reliable and reputable tv shows are for representing information earnestly and accurately. User:69.199.242.181 May 20 2006

I am a little disappointed as I had thought, and hoped Wikipedia might be more reliable than the tv as a source of information. I am happy I resisted the temptation to use if for research in any of my work. This has proven to me the value of peer reviewed work even if there is the occasional intellectual elitism. The loss of creditability without the peer review process threatens sufficiently to justify the tolerance of the occasional intellectual elitism. User:69.199.242.181 May 20 2006

I generally agree with the above comment; the show was a report on other research and not itself research. I'd be more interested in the underlying cites. News reports have a habit of trying to sensationalize, and the summary attacking the straw man of the "common understanding" tells us nothing. If the show is so important, perhaps it deserves a page of its own where its sources could be fully explicated? But I don't see the point of reporting on a report. Sam 09:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

In the Controversy section, can anyone explain this bit and point to a reference? It seems frankly absurd to me:

Critics claim that through FMRI it has been demonstrated that the dyslexic mind processes information - mostly in pictures, sounds and emotion - about 1300 to 25000 times faster than the 'normal' brain, which is considered to work with verbal thought processes. The 'normal' person is limited to the speed of speech, as opposed to the dyslexic who thinks mainly in non-verbal terms. This means that much information is lost when trying to put thoughts into words, as to the dyslexic the process can feel similar to translating a foreign language.

It was put in long after I added the text at the top about citing sources. I suggest removing it unless there's some evidence.

I've tried to keep myself away from this article, but I see it's still in very bad shape. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 12:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The pain of being Dyslexic

Although I see a lot of discussion about what Dyslexia is and is not. I don't see much about the human side of it. What its like to be Dyslexic. Personaly I run in to spelling knotsies and english biggets all the time. I've written several blogs about my frustration with whats it like to be Dyslexic. I'd like to see and or post something about this.

Any thoughts?

Mark at grennan.com

Mgrennan 02:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern about the pain of being dyslexic. However, Wikipedia is meant to be an encycolpedia and personal experiences about a broad topic such as dyslexia are non-encyclopedic. A general discussion of the difficulties that dyslexia creates is appropriate and appears to be addressed in the Characteristics section. If you have any general information (e.g. navigation while driving can be especially challenging to a dyslexia sufferer, etc.) without having it become a personal topic, please feel free to add that information. Blogs will still be the best place for you to express your personal frustration with the challenges of dyslexia.

Epolk 19:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Mgrennan is not asking to have Wikipedia change its policies to accommodate his personal blogs. I believe that he is asking for the dyslexia page to include the human side of dyslexia, or an answer to "How does it feel to be dyslexic?" The answer to that question, which Mgrennan very competently poses, certainly could be written in an encyclopedic manner. Fredsmith2 23:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

One way to address the "human" side of dyslexia in an "encyclopedic" fashion would be to create a section about the Emotional Effects of Dyslexia, Secondary Symptoms of Dyslexia, or something along those lines. The emotional fallout of dyslexia, as with learning disabilities in general, is well researched and documented, and can thus be legitimately included in an encyclopedia article. With appropriate citations, of course. :-) smoran 17:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Functional MRI studies

You may want to search for the recent functional MRI studies involving dyslexia that support a physiological basis. Here are some summary articles:

http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/501030908/story.html http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web3/Slaughter.html http://science-education.nih.gov/snapshots.nsf/story?openform&rtn~Dyslexia

205.201.32.123 02:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

All the fMRI studies have shown is that those who have the dyslexic symptoms use different areas of their brain to develp coping strategies that non dyslexics do not have to use. So this is a very good but espensive Screening test for potential dyslexics

dolfrog 20:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"Alternative spellings"

As far as I have been able to determine, the 'alternative spellings' are not widely used in anything except a self-deprecating, self-referential or otherwise humorous context. Therefore I'm editing them out. If I'm wrong, I hope I don't cause anyone any offence. Matthew Platts 13:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

spanish?

The characteristics are now in spanish? i think. can this be changed back. Charlie78 18:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Dyslexic Wikipedians

has been proposed for deletion you can add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Wikipedians by mental condition. --Salix alba (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Mirror writing

The description of mirror writing is ambiguous and poorly worded:

"writing that appears backwards, but can be read when reflected in a mirror"

That could mean that when reflected in a mirror, it appears backwards, but can be read (which obviously makes it normal writing), or that it actually is backwards, in which case, why say it "appears" so, and shouldn't "but" be replaced with "and"? --

D021317c 11:39, 28 May 2006 (EDT)

Jumbled

"More problems can include the brain being extremely or mildly jumbled."

This doesn't sound right to me?

RE: Learning disability

I strongly disagree with any institutions that use the term “learning disability” in their definition of dyslexia. These experts are non-dyslexics that extract their theories from books written by non-dyslexics.

It is a different learning style and it does not take an expert to identify this fact. Once the learning formula has been identified and mastered, most dyslexics prove that the “learning disability” term has no value at all. Right from the start all humans need to come up with a learning formula and dyslexics alike.

US National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) / International Dyslexia Association

Defines Dyslexia as a specific learning disability of neurological origin. Characterized with difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition, spelling and decoding abilities.

Im a Dyslexic and I know that dyslexia is a disablity, but in my opinion it is just a speedbump that can be easily 'got over', my dyslexia used to be a learning disablity to me until I just tried harder than a person without dyslexia to overcome these issues. Im not stupid, and I know dyslexia is very different from retardation, I have an IQ of 140, and am reasonably intteligent, in fact when I was younger my reading age was twice that of non-dyslexics who were my age, but dyslexia does cause problems for many people, you have to accept that. On the other hand dyslexia does often have plus points, whereas dyslexia may cause disability in certain areas (e..g a smaller language area of the brain), it also often leads to increased capability in other areas (e.g. logic, possibly mathematics, it varies from dyslexic to dyslesic, but usually in compensation for a smlaller language section, the brain compenstates by a larger other section). Usually dyslexics have specific skills which are much improved on those on non-dyslexics, such as skills in science, art, English vocabulary (Im only sixteen so Ive just taken my GCSE's, but I have achieved A*'s in many of my English language and literature tests, the highest you can get in English qualifications), and dyslexics usually have certain ways of looking at things, or a certain drive or intrest in specific things which increases their capability in specific subjects. Basically (with many dyslexics) at the increased difficulty in learning certain common skills (such as spelling etc) dyslexics often have a specific skill which they are much better at than the majority of non-dyslexics. In short dyslexia IS a learning disability to many, but it is also a gift in certain ways to many.172.206.11.173 10:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi 172.206.11.173

i see you are fom the UK. where unfortunately due to years of poor information being promoted by agencies lioke the BDA and others dyslexia is widely miss understood and the media have taken advantage to make headlines. yes those who have the dyslexic symptoms haveto wrk harder to keep pace with non dyslexics especially if no accomodations are made for the underlying causes of the individuals dyslexic symptoms. and those with high IQs are best able to develop coping strategies to cope with ther deficit. at your age you will have developed coping strategies to helpyou in the UK education systerm but you will need new and or additional sets coping strategies after you leave the educational environment into the more un predictable adult world outside of the structured world of education. you may like to have a look at two UK based adult dylexia forums that discuss adult dyslexic issues. have a look at being dyslexic http://beingdyslexic.co.uk/forums/index.php and "Bees the wrong way around" http://beesthewrongwayround.com/

best wishes dolfrog 19:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is a total mess

Just about every tenet of wikipedia has been broken on this article. Is there a consensus that it needs to be cleaned up or are people happy with it as it is? --Fergie 09:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have specific points, where you think the article needs improvment? It's easier to try and address specific points than a general cleanup call. --Salix alba (talk) 10:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it the page is very much about dyslexia as a wholely negative disorder, and does not reflect the positive view of dyslexia as a different mode of thinking. For example Dyslexia the gift, The Benefits of Dyslexia. The general view of this is that dyslexic people often have strengths in seeing the overall picture, in solving problems quickly and in visual skills and can tend to be very creative DIMW Column – Dyslexia, the Hidden Problem Among Creatives.

One challenge to this is making it clear that dyslexia is not a necessary condition for being creative, and likewise, not all people with dyslexia have such a talent. Instead they have other talents like being great parents, businesspeople, teachers, etc. I am all for encouraging people to think of dyslexia as just one part of a person's abilities, rather than a person's defining characteristic. But I think we have to be careful to present factual information. There's no scientific evidence that I know of to support the theory that reading difficulties cause you to be more creative. --Drmarc 21:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this is more a case of correlation rather than causation, my own view is that a lot of its down to different development in the brain, which can cause both the reading dificulty and a more spatical awareness. From WP:NPOV NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and it can be said that the benefits of dyslexia are a significant viewpoint, even though there is not scientific underpinning. On the flip side I've read somewhere that a disproportionate number of the prisioners are dyslexic. --Salix alba (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The article also misses the many famous people who have been suspected of being dyslexic Richard Branson, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Walter Elias Disney, Alexander Graham Bell, Leonardo DeVinci, Thomas Alva Edison, Michael Faraday. --Salix alba (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I and others have been trying to clean it up. It was in much worse shape a month ago. I'm keen to keep working on it but time is limited. If you have comments on where it could be improved please do post them here, or make some changes yourself. --Drmarc 21:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If you look over the changelogs and talk page you will see that I am a long time, occasional editor of this page. The article as it stands is full of unverified and questionable information, yet there seems to be little will to change it. The 'charcteristics' section in particular has flown in the face of all that is good and holy about Wikipedia for several months. Unusually, there is no edit war here, what is happening is that a lot of different users are reverting sensible edits. I just want to find out if it is only me or if others feel the same. --Fergie 11:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Fergie, I do feel the same way about the page. I did work on the 'characteristics' section a few months ago, including removing a load of things that are factually untrue. But yes, lots of the "points" in there are not helpful and are not referenced because there'd be nothing to refer to. I guess the issue for me has been how much of the old, unhelpful stuff to cut, and how much time one has to edit the page.--Drmarc 01:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The Myth of Dyslexia.

I have not changed the article because I do not have any evidence, and I do not feel that it would add to the content, but I thought I would add this here.

It seem so me that any condition that cannot be easerly tested or defined makes the medical community (especially Doctors) very uneasy, and they are very quick to try and discredit anything they cannot treat with a few pills and a set of precise data.

Good examples of this a Dyslexia and Depression. These conditions are ones that do not have a list of standard criteria for people to say "right we’ve ticked off X amount of them so the diagnosis is confermed".

Personal Feelings (sorry): My (entirely personal) opinion is that many Doctors have an over inflated view of there own important (GP's and consultants mostly, Specialists much less so). As a Chartered Engineer If I treated my clients the same way as some Doctors have treated me and my partner (who suffers from depression) Id have been fired a long time ago, and I am just as qualified as them and dealing with people who know even less about what I do that people do about there own body’s... This type of attitude seems to go along way to explaining why the medical profession seem so ready to write off Dyslexia as "just being lazy" of "a bit slow".

Paul

There is also another reason. The most probable causes for dyslexia are enviroment factors like mercury (which is known to disturb the braindevelopment in humans and animals alike). Things that can't be threated - and even worse - would cost the big lobby's money are usually dismissed as non existent... The Bush Regime is even trying to get mercury from the list of poisons^^ BakuninXL 23:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not all mercury is poisonous, nor in the same amounts. The problem with finding a "cause" for dyslexia is that there is no single dyslexia, rather it's an effect caused by any number of factors. While I agree that exposure to mercury is not good, you must be careful not to delve into conspiracy theories... I know that people claim that mercury in MRM vaccinations causes autism, despite the situation that we no longer use mercury in our MRM vaccinations, and our rate of autism has not decreased, neither is the rate of autism higher in places where MRM vaccinations are still allowed to contain mercury, and of course all of that is compounded by the fact that autism is not identifiable until the child begins do develop as it is a development disorder, much like dyslexia. You can't examine a 1-year old and know if it has dyslexia or not, because 1-year olds can't read. Similarly with autism, all babies begin pretty darn autistic, then they develop some, and then autistics fall behind and never catch up. That's just how things work, of course, do anything consistently to babies any time right around where that falling behind is noticable (like, give them an MRM vaccination) and suddenly people will associate a cause-and-effect where none exists. Speculation and wild theories are pretty pointless on wikipedia --Puellanivis 03:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Dyslexia is not a desease

It's a problem with the brain development or brain chemistry. It's probably closer related to Psychopathy, than to anything else. Instant of no feelings or empathy, people with Dyslexia have no normal access to the parts of the brain which usually are responsible for language. These parts are there, for some reason they just don't work like they are supposed to. It's the same with Psychopaths, the part of the brain that usualy progress feeling and stuff is there, it's just doesn't work for some reason...

BakuninXL 19:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree that dyslexia is not a disease, dyslexia / reading disability is included in the ICD-9 (medical) and DSM-IV (psychiatric) diagnostic codes. There are many other neurological issues that are not diseases, per se, but are disorders in how the brain or overall nervous system works. AD/HD is a good example --- it's a neurological problem or disorder, but it isn't a "disease." smoran 17:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sami

Dyslexia is not a medical issue. Dyslexia is about having problems using a man made communication system. But the underlying cause of the dyslexic symptoms can be medical in origin.

best wishes

dolfrog 20:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Dyslexia: New Theory

"...studies suggest that children with dyslexia have bad filters for irrelevant data. As a result, they struggle to form solid mental categories for identifying letters and word sounds..."[4] Brian Pearson 07:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Good link. Seems to meet the criteria outlined in WP:REF. It would be great if the whole article could be built up from proper, peer reviewed research such as this.--Fergie 10:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for a rewrite -- I would like to retitle the "biological" basis to include the term "neurological", and include a brief summary of the research, including that done by Galaburda in the 80's as to hemispheric structural differences, the focus on phonological processing in the 90's, the research on magnocellular deficit, the more recent reports by the Sperling/Fu team on filtering issue (the one mentioned above); the connectionist work of Berninger at U. of Washington; and perhaps some mention of the outlier theories, such as cerebellar functioning. I know that it seems like a long list, but I think the basic theories along with citations to major researchers could be easily summarized - and it seems to me that it is more informative to outline the major areas of research focus, without trying to analyze the merits of the various findings. What I would like to cover (at least) are the researchers who are most likely to attract media attention, so when you read something in the news such as the study cited by Brian you could come back to the wikipedia article and at least get a sense of where it all fits in the context of other research being done. Abigail Marshall 02:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've always been interested in reading science articles. In the case of articles such as those found at eurakalert.org [5], when I have a question or comment to make, I'm often asked if I am a media person and, if so, what media I'm working for. They might be more open to comments if they know their comments or their research could find its way into articles. Just a thought. Brian Pearson 01:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, Brian. I have been following up on new research that I used to source a new article - Perceptual noise exclusion hypothesis -- and corresponding with Dr. Lu, one of the researchers. It began when I simply asked for a copy of the research article in advanced of its publication. I do write for another publication, so I just mentioned my interest in that context -- I hadn't really thought about the wikipedia connection. But I wrote Dr. Lu to ask what they wanted to call their theory -- and I did let him know when I created the above article. He has been very helpful and responsive to my questions -- I just email him and say that I want to make sure I get things right. But I do think that they are sending out press releases because they want their work publicized, so they should be happy to see it showing up quickly in wikipedia. Abigail Marshall 05:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Perceptual noise Exclusion hypothesis is a already one of the established models of Auditory Processing Disorder. Which was how APD first came to be recognised over 30 years ago. It appears that this article just confirms that APD is an underlying cause of Dyslexia. In the UK we also know it as Obscure Auditory Dysfunction (OAD). which is curently being redefined to represent APD in Adults by the UK Medical Research Council

best wishes

dolfrog 20:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Visual dyslexia - The child in the photograph was experiencing.....

The following statement, posted under the new subhead "Visual Dyslexia", seems to me like an unsourced and unsubstantiated testimonial - NOT an appropriate entry for Wikipedia: The child in the photograph was experiencing some learning and behaviourial difficulties at a leading private school in London. The teaching staff did not consider that there might be a physical cause. On being taken to a specialist in the UK Midlands, visual dyslexia was diagnosed. Treatment using coloured and 'frosted' lenses lasted only three weeks. The boy's reading age (which was 7 at age 7) improved by two years within three months. I am looking for others' comments or views on this issue. I don't think anecdotal reports or testimonials should be allowed, at all, in the dyslexia topic -- no matter what the message, except (at most) to say that X method "is supported with anecdotal evidence" - coupled with an appropriate citation. (If testimonials start coming in for one method, then they would be acceptable for all.... and that would quickly turn into a useless muddle)

I propose that the above paragraph be removed, and replaced merely with a descriptive tag for the image, e.g. "Picture depicts a 7 year old boy treated with a 'frosted lens' to address a vision problem causing difficulties with reading." (or something similar).

I would be interested in hearing other thoughts on this. Abigail Marshall 03:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I poked around, and saw something called, "Visual deficits in dyslexia?"[6] But, without buying it, I couldn't confirm anything. The British Dyslexia Association[7] does talk about colored glasses, papers, and so forth, as an aid for some dyslexics. Brian Pearson 06:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, my problem is with the statement about the result -- i.e., the claim, that the child's reading improved by "two years within three months" -- there is no way to verify that, and if the proponent of one method can do that, then pretty soon someone else would come along with another picture and some other claim. I don't think Widkipedia should be a place for hype or testimonials... that's all.

I've gone ahead and removed this paragraph from the article -- if the person who posted it can substantiate the claims, then I think they should create another topic to explain the nature of the therapy, and then use a reference & link to get there. There just isn't room for details about all the different treatments for dyslexia in the one article.

"The child in the photograph was experiencing some learning and behaviourial difficulties at a leading private school in London. The teaching staff did not consider that there might be a physical cause. On being taken to a specialist in the UK Midlands, visual dyslexia was diagnosed. Treatment using coloured and 'frosted' lenses lasted only three weeks. The boy's reading age (which was 7 at age 7) improved by two years within three months.^{[citation needed]}"

Abigail Marshall 11:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think such specifics don't belong in an encyclopedia. Brian Pearson 02:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Promotion of private dyslexia treatment centers:

I have removed the following text, because it looks like private advertising to me:

More recent advances made by the Dyslexia Treatment Centre A private therapy centre in Glasgow Scotland, UK that specializes in helping a wide variety "Learning Differences" such as ADD, ADHD, Dyslexia and dyspraxia. The Dyslexia Treatment Centre use a combination therapy treatment including the VAK Approach, used in (nlp) Neuro Linguist Programming

I do not believe that the Wikipedia entry should be used to promote private centers. If there is a specific METHOD for treatment of dyslexia that is widely used, then I think that a separate topic should be used to reference that method, and the dyslexia article can briefly refer to it and then link; example: [Orton-Gillingham]

Private centers which offer a particular method, or web sites devoted to promoting that method, might appropriately be linked a the bottom of a particular page. For example, there is a section for "External Links" and "Schools for Dyslexic Students" at the bottom of the article where outside links might be appropriate. Abigail Marshall 02:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Reading skills acquisition, previously called Reading Difficulties and Dyslexia

I oppose this merge. I'm not sure that there is any new information there and, to be completely honest think that "Reading Difficulties and Dyslexia" could probably stand to be deleted. --Selket 16:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The real question is whether Reading Difficulties and Dyslexia are one and the same (or at least closely related). If the answer is 'yes', then the articles should be merged.--Fergie 14:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Selket; I don't think that "Reading Difficulties and Dyslexia" is useful in understanding dyslexia, so I don't think a merger makes sense. Dyslexia is NOT synonymous with "failure to acquire reading skills", but rather is recognized to be a condition of neurological origin (i.e., a functional brain difference) that impacts reading and literacy. The "Reading Difficulties" article lists underlying skill areas related to dyslexia, but otherwise has nothing to do with dyslexia. I think the word "dyslexdia" should be excised from the "Reading Difficulties" article, and it should be retitled something like "Reading Skill Acquisition" or merged with an article on reading or literacy, if any such article exists -- perhaps with the article Developmental Stages of Reading, -- Abigail Marshall 08:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am no expert in the field, yet through my work (in medicine) I have noted a growing consensus that treatments effective for children diagnosed with reading difficulties are equally effective for children diagnosed with dyslexia. Furthermore, that there exists no agreed clinical definition of dyslexia that identifies symptoms not present in individuals with reading difficulties. I definately agree with the proposal to merge this article with "Reading Difficulties and Dyslexia", until such time as we see some solid peer reviewed research to indicate that individuals with reading difficulties are distinct in some way from individuals with dyslexia.--Fergie 15:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The research is there. Example: Shaywitz SE, Shaywitz BA, Fulbright R, et al (2003). Neural Systems for Compensation and Persistence: Young Adult Outcome of Childhood Reading Disability. Biological Psychiatry 54:25-33. Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12842305&dopt=Abstract

I don't want to get into a debate over research, but I think that the emerging consensus is that there is a neurological difference, and the issue of educational interventions is very different than the issue of the underlying cause of the condition. Torgeson reports failure rates as high as 40% with the reading interventions typically used in schools, so I think the "consensus" is that educators haven't quite figured out what is the best way to help dyslexics become fluent and capable readers. -- Abigail Marshall 03:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Good link, yet you appear to be proving my point. The abstract (no access to the full paper) seems to use 'reading difficulty' and 'dyslexia' interchangably- ergo there is no clinical difference between 'reading difficulty' and 'dyslexia' according to these researchers and the Dyslexia article should be merged with "Reading Difficulties and Dyslexia". --Fergie 10:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the 2003 Shaywitz study I referenced reported two distinct patterns of dyslexia, with different neurological signatures, and theorized that there were very distinct subgroups -- one that was merely poor readers, but another group who became more capable readers over time but persisted with a more divergent neural signature. I could easily list 50 different studies all finding some sort of neurological difference related to dyslexia if you wanted to debate the point. But wouldn't it make more sense to simply have a separate article that dealt with "reading acquisition" and cross-link with the dyslexia section? That way, you've got the information all neatly organized & cross-referenced, without creating more confusion. I agree that the issues overlap -- but there are dyslexics who read well but continue to have other symptoms of dyslexia; and there are many children and adults who do not read well, but are not dyslexic -- so it is not helpful to anyone to view a symptom of the condition as being synonymous with it. -- Abigail Marshall 20:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If it can be shown that some people with dyslexia read well then I concede the point. But this argument means that dyslexia is not related to reading, which is perhaps venturing into the bounds of original research. What symptoms of dyslexia do not relate to reading difficulty? Can good readers really be classified as dyslexic? If so, is this classification a mainstream view?--Fergie 10:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a good list of common symptoms of dyslexia here -- http://www.dyslexia-ca.org/dyslexiasymptoms.html - this is from an International Dyslexia Association web site, so it definitely reflects mainstream view. Some of the common symptoms listed unrelated to reading are difficulty in learning tasks such as tying shoes; left-right confusion; difficulty following direction. You might also be interested in this article which is comes from a retrospective study of successful adult dyslexics, tracing their development of reading skills - all of the dyslexics in the study became excellent readers; all had been diagnosed with dyslexia in childhood and also participated in extensive diagnostic testing as adults. The article is here: http://www.careertrainer.com/Request.jsp?lView=ViewArticle&Article=OID%3A33637 -- Abigail Marshall 14:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Dyslexia is not the same as Reading Difficulty. They are sets that overlap but are not identical. Someone who is never taught to read can have a reading difficulty without ever being dyslexic. Yes, literature often uses the terms interchangably - but then that happens elsewhere in intellecetual discussions without issue (Russia is often used in Second World War articles in place of USSR, or Britain in place of United Kingdom). The need for English language writers to find alternative words to keep articles free of repetition does not make those alternative words entirely identical. 193.129.65.37 06:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed the name of "Reading difficulties and Dyslexia" to "Reading skills acquisition", as Abigail Marshall suggested. I'll remove the merger suggestion as it is clear there is no consensus on merging. Lova Falk 09:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There are many tpyes of reading difficulty, and Dyslexia is only One of them. However Dyslexia can only be about a sensory or motor information processing deficit or disorder, and / or conflicting Learning Style that causes a reading difficulty. dolfrog 14:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

What can be done to protect this page? There are vandals - almost always anonymous IP's - messing with the article on a daily basis, usually deleting text, posting obscenities, or scrambling letters. Is there a way that we can request Wikipedia to restrict editing of this page to registered users who log in? It seems that some of the pages in Wikipedia do have some added measure of protection.... and it only takes 5 minutes for anyone to create a user account, so I think that is a simple first step that at least might deter some of the vandals. -- Armarshall 03:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If you really think that the vandalism is that bad, bring it up here and an administrator will probably protect the page. // PoeticDecay 03:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ! -- Armarshall 05:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

NLP and NPOV

The history of dyslexis section has major problems with POV. A huge amount of article space is dedicated to fringe theories with no peer-reviewd publications. This fails the principle of Undue weight. It is worth noting that the NLP crowd has been accused of agenda pushing elsewhere. -Selket ^Talk 16:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this at all -- there is one line mentioning NLP at the very end. There are 5 paragraphs tracing history from Berlin, Morton, Orton, and reference to phonological awareness. Then there are only 2 paragraphs summarizing views of West, Davis, & Silverman.

Furthermore, this is a "history" section -- it makes no sense to be looking for "peer-reviewed" publications to give "history". That is, it doesn't matter whether Orton was right or wrong or what methodology he used was - the only issue as to "history" are the facts as to what he did. I agree with you that the very last sentence of the NLP reference seems to come out of the blue, and wouldn't have any problem with deleting that single, concluding sentence. But the rest is a fairly straightforward discussion of major, widely disseminated points of view. - Armarshall 02:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated stats

Throughout this article, there's a lot of wild and unsubstantiated claims such as the following:

The current consensus is that dyslexia occurs in both sexes with equal frequency. It was previously reported more frequently in males, possibly due to selection factors and/or bias.

I don't mind these stats as long as they're supported by references, but otherwise they're too off-the-wall. The dead giveaway is the expression "possibly due to..." Deleted the line from Facts and Statistics section. BomberJoe 04:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Music and dyslexia - unsourced statement

I removed the following text because it is unsubstantiated and factually inaccurate (even if musical training could help with dyslexia, there is no "long history" of it being used to remediate dyslexia -- at best it is a novel and unusual approach):

Music and dyslexia have had a long and complicated relationship in that dyslexics have difficulty with learning music notation but, at the same time, music has long been used as a method for overcoming dyslexic obstacles in reading and mathematics. There is some suggestion that dyslexia is less prevalent amongst children who have a history of singing in early childhood.^[3] In other words, where musical training is a rigorous part of early childhood training, the probability of dyslexia can be significantly reduced. ^[4]

I retained the citations, but placed them at the end of a new sentence, "There is also some evidence that musical training may help develop temporal processing skills, and may provide a further avenue of remediation for dyslexia." This is consistent with the abstract of the first citation -

It has been proposed that temporal processing ability can be improved through training, and that this will lead to improved language and literacy skills (Tallal et al., 1996). Music training, requiring very accurate timing skills, can offer a medium for the development and improvement of temporal processing ability, and thus may provide a valuable form of extra remediation for dyslexic children. This article reports some preliminary work in this area, which has produced encouraging results. http://pom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/28/2/218

I just found the original paragraph to be overstated and it seemed like a very unusual claim. I don't know of any research correlating research as to the prevalence of dyslexia in musical training - so if it exists, it needs to be better supported. - Armarshall 05:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

To AR Marshall

I can understand your urge to remove my contribution, but you must allow room for people with other documented knowledge. You are dismissing the wisdom of others who have long dealt with dyslexia using other methods, in particular the choral methods used in religious schools for centuries. Without a balanced presentation, your contribution appears immature, bombastic and ill-informed, since it ignores what others have known for centuries. I'm sure that you don't want your work to appear thus. I am not disparaging your contribution (although I would very much like to), and I ask you to leave my contribution in place. Your knowledge of alternative and novel theories does not automatically give you the right to dismiss the valid contributions of others in Wikipedia. Therefore I have replaced the section that you removed, and ask that you leave it in place. It is properly sourced and documented and it belongs up front with the other contributions. If you want to be useful, please focus on cleaning up the many undocumented and unsourced contributions instead. BomberJoe 23:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

BomberJoe -- I read the source you gave and quoted directly from that. The following statements simply are not based in fact: "music has long been used as a method for overcoming dyslexic obstacles in reading and mathematics" -- your reference to choral methods used in religious schools "for centuries" makes no sense, because "dyslexia" was not even known or recognized widely until the 20th century, and was first documented as a medical condition in the late 19th century. I would suggest if you are knowledgeable about the use of music to teach reading, that you tone down your language and that you also add to the "Music Therapy" topic, and create an appropriate link from the dyslexia topic to that, as has been done with references to other methods in the preceding paragraph. By "tone down" I mean, don't state categorically that a novel and rarely used approach has been "used for centuries"; don't claim that an approach that some studies find "encouraging" is is going to "prevent" dyslexia. Or else provide the evidence to support the statements. I wasn't out to get you -- I read your addition, then I did my best to find the sources you cited, and what I could find didn't support what you said. Stick to the facts and label theory appropriately. - Armarshall 00:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Adkchamp 04:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)I'm 19 and I believe I have Dyslexia but my friends and family tell me i dont have it. im now a freshman at college and the reason is because all my life, my reading comprehension was at a level below than my peers yet i've manage to work ways to exceed that by a small percentage every year(such as methods). I have a IQ of 117 out of 140 (thats above average), im very creative when it comes to art such as acting and also good in sports (but did not achieved in it due to excessive minor injuries); my handwriting is illegible, written grammar sucked and when i read, i skipped some words and/or lines (maybe because it didn't interest me?) (no one really actually helped me at English during high school and my history on reading was terrible); i day dream a lot; i use pictures to remember things; i taught myself the multiple times table in the 3rd grade all the way through 5th grade and now im at expert at it;and I have a minor hearing problem (i can hear 85% on the left and 95% on the right). So tell me, is it possible that i still have it or maybe im just making it up? adkchamp

Hi

There is a body of research regarding the use of music and how it can affect or improve human performance in various areas of life, for instance the Mozart Effect. And specifically The Listening Program and Tomatis programs etc are base on music and sound, and can help with some of the underlying causes of dyslexia

best wishes dolfrog 13:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Satabishara 04:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)==Speech,Hearing== I added Speech,Hearing section to Dyslexia. A lot of Dyslexics have problems with speech and auditory processing. I am definitely one of them. International Dyslexia Association have speech and auditory processing problems listed. Speech delays is one of the early warning signs of Dyslexia. Many Dyslexics have history of severe ear infections. Many of them had glue ear. There have been many a Dyslexic that needed speech therapy. Many people who have problems sounding out words when they talk have problems sounding out words when they read. (Satabishara 15:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)).

The symptoms of Dyslexia are right from International Dyslexia Association site. It is listed as symptoms difficulty with oral language and difficulty with reading under "Does my Child have Dyslexia" at the site. Nothing else. There is no need to type Speech/Hearing deficits shared with Dyslexia. The whole point is to show that speech/hearing deficits can be symptoms of Dyslexia. Also..it's not necessarily separate from Dyslexia. I feel that a lot of people have a big problem seeing the picture. They look at a part of something and they label it. http://www.interdys.org/fact%20sheets/Dys&RelDis%20FS%20N.PDF Satabishara 04:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Satabishara

The International Dyslexia Association has its own agenda as to what dyslkexia should be which revolves around the Orton Gilliam remedial program. You have it the wrong way round dyslexia is not a condsition and can not cause anything. Dyslexia is all about having problems with a secondary man made communication system, the visual notaion of speech which varies from one culture to another. You are thge one seing the big picture, having problems processing the auditory information will cause you to have problems processing any notationof that information. Dyslexia is allabout having problems processing the visual notaion of our cultures auditory communication system speech. So dyslexia can not cause problems with speech or hearing. So you will have to begin to try and identify the underlying causes of your dyslexic symptoms which could be APD. have alook at the theories of developmental dyslexia from researchers and not agenda driven agencies.

best wishes

dolfrog 11:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You are arrogant, Dolfrog. You assume too much. You talk to people like they are stupid. You know that many of us Dyslexics have above average intelligence,and I am one of them. You are the same zealot that was in the Dyslexia yahoo group forums. For your information, the neurologists and psychoneurologists told me my underlying causes of my Dyslexia. Don't assume that they didn't. Auditory processing issues can be result of Dyslexia. It's well known that auditory,phonological processing issues,speech problems are connected Dyslexia. My mother was told that I had an auditory form of Dyslexia that even included auditory reversals leading to speech reversals. I was 4 years old at the time. International Dyslexia Association lists phonological,auditory,and speech problems too. It's not the only Dyslexic organization that lists that. I also agree with Abigail Marshall's view that Dyslexia and APD doesn't necessarily have to be separate. It can be from the same underlying causes like being a picture thinker. I do think mainly in pictures,and so does my Dyslexic mother. I have read your stuff in Dyslexia forums,and you tend to shove your views down people's throat. Abigail Marshall talked to you about in the yahoo Dyslexia Support forum...especially when she stuck up for me.

This is Raymond Andrews btw. We got into it in the Dyslexia Support forum before. This whole wikipedia section is about Dyslexia. It's not just about APD. This isn't a section to promote your APD only disregard other people's views. You are are so arrogant to know more about a person's Dyslexia than the neurologists and psychoneurologists who tested them. They already told me my underlying causes. I was diagnosed as having Dyslexia by the neurologists. I don't need lectures from you. A lot of people don't need lectures from you.

I knew that you changed the hearing/speech stuff. I know how zealous you are about your APD crusade. It's not like people don't know that Dyslexics have auditory processing issues. That's been established years ago. What you want to do is separated auditory processing issues from Dyslexia. It's not that cut and dry. A lot of Dyslexics have more than just auditory processing issues. I already listed mine in another subsection," theory of dyslexia as an inner ear disorder" I was recognized as having an inner ear disorder..I was diagnosed as one. I had very abnormal test results suggesting inner ear disorder..the abnormal posturography alone suggested inner ear disorder as it tests balance. Also my abnormal electonystagmography shows inner ear disorder reflected with problems eye tracking,movements which are controlled by the cerebellar vestibular system. I also have a family history of lefthandedness including my maternal grandfather and maternal uncle who had stuttering and needed speech therapy. I have cross dominance(righthanded but left eye and left ear dominant same as my mother who is Dyslexic)

I am done with this. This section is turning into "Dolfrog's APD view of Dyslexia and forget everybody else's views" section.

(Satabishara 22:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

Folks, There is really no argument that we could possibly have on this subject. Wikipedia content standards are very clear. We must include mainstream views and present them objectively. The International Dyslexia Association is a very well-respected organization, and no one's personal opinion can change the fact that it represents the mainstream views of current peer-reviewed research. Information from and about the IDA must be included.

Satabishara, I encourage you to go forward and add the information about the IDA that you think is appropriate. What we do at that point is to "frame" that view with citations, and frame the contrary views with citations.

Best,

smoran 05:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Satabishara and Sami

I was firsty diagnosed as dyslexic and some years later as having APD as my underlying cause of my dyslexia. I am not trying to make any one who has a diagnosis of dyslexia think that they have APD, far from it I just want all who have been diagnoised as having dyslexia to look deeper into the issues sthat cause them to be dyslexic, some of these underlying isses have more serious issues than problems with reading writing and spelling which is what dyslexia is all about. Organiations and or Associations have their own internal agendas which do not necessarily coincide with what is best for all dyslexics especially those who do not fit their prefered definition of dyslexia. (this is the case unfortunately in the UK). These organiations are not representative of the all current dyslexia related research that covers all dyslexics, some even try to exclude various types of dyslexics becuase they do not fit their model which is determined by an internal secret agenda. And the list of the characteristics by the ida should have a citation, but they are not scientific researchers.

Satabishara i am very aware that dyslexics may have APD, and that other may not have APD at all, but where I come from if people are lucky enough to have a diagnosis of dyslexia it stops at that. They are not encouraged to find out about or told about the other issues that may cause dyslexia. And if you mention auditory or visual processing issues not many would understand what you were talking about. This does not even get into the areas concerning ADD, or the motor skill areas such as dyspraxia. Nor the issues of conflicting learning styles such as Visual-Spatial Learning which is another cause of my own dyslexia, and that of my youngest son who does not have APD.

From your posting I gather you are in the USA, which has known about APD for some 30 years or more, here in the UK that is not the case in the UK APD was quietly given its first official recognition in 2004, and the biggest problem in promoting any public awareness of the existance of APD is the widely promoted mythical condition of dyslexia, which has been used as an umbrella term to conceal most of the real underlying causes of dyslexia in the UK.

Un like your diagnosis at the age of 4, my sons were both 14 before their real problems were diagnosed. Even after the clinical diagnosis the schools etc still were not able to provide the support they really need because oif this mythical consdition dyslexia is abarrier to understanding the underlying causes of dyslexia. Me I was 49 years old when I was diagnosed, a bit late in the day. May campaign is to defeat the ignorance that hides behind the mythical condition of dyslexia so that other dyslexics and parents of dyslexics do not have to go through the same pain our family have had to go through. Once the mythical of the condition of dyslexia is replaced with sensible concept of a syndrome of dyslexic symptoms with a wide range of underlying cuases, then I can revert back to concentrate on helping those who have APD especially regarding the major issues they face on a daily basis least of which are the dyslexic issues. I started out only campaigning for increased awarness of APD, but the UK attitude to dyslexia, agenies, schools teachers even Government, has created an artificial barrier which needs dismantling. And from the international forums i have been on the same attitudes seem to prevail else where. Becuase I have APD, that is what I know about, but my campaign applies to all the other underlying causes of dyslexia that need to be brought into the public domain for discussion and understanding. My speciality is APD, so others who have the other underlying causes of dsyslexia will have to run their own campaigns, to inform the public of their problems and support needs.

My mission as you call it is to have dyslexia the man made problem recognised as a colection of symptoms to do with reading writing and spelling, and for the real underlyting causes to be recognised as be the cuases of dyslexia. Because until you can define the underlying cause you can not begin to recommend which of the many expensive remedial programs may provide some benefit. From my own experience of being dyslexic I can only represent those who have APD and Visual-Spatial Learning as their underlying cause of dyslexia. I can appreciate and understand that others have different sets of underlying causes of their dyslexic symptoms, but they must be open and campaign for their underlying causes of dyslexia. The problems associated with APD, the correspnding Visual Processing Disorder, ADD, Visual-Spatial Learning etc have dylexia as just one set of problems or symptoms, and for most dyslexia is the least important set of symptoms they face everyday. Dyslexia does not cause anything, it can only be about having problems with a man made communication system, what is more important is to find out what causes your dyslexia and the wider range of problems they can create.

best wishes

dolfrog 07:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Dolfrog,

I understand what you are saying, but personal views and ideas do not fit into the content guidelines for Wikipedia. Original research is forbidden; personal opinions and life experiences are irrelevant. etc. Wikipedia is not the place to advance personal campaigns. In fact, it is a clear violation of at least one of the three Fundamental Wikipedia Principles: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."

Some of the things you've talked about in your posts also violate the 2nd and 3rd Wiki fundamentals, which are: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.

best,

smoran 23:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Smoran. Dolfrog, I think that your ideas and contributions are valuable, but you are also pushing your opinions and perspective rather than following the standards for wikipedia, both in presenting objective and verifiable information, and in the tone/style of your writing. In other words, a lot of what you write is good, but it doesn't belong here. I hope you will spend some time reviewing the Wikipedia standards smoran cited and contribute with those standards in mind. Do you have a personal blog? I think that some of what you have written here would be great if it was on your own site or blog -- it just doesn't fit all that well with the tone and perspective that wikipedia is supposed to maintain. Armarshall 04:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Biological Basis - Magnocellular deficit

The magnocellular theory of a visual processing deficit in dyslexia has now been extensively researched, and I don't think is adequately cover by the sentence:

"Other research focuses on the theory that dyslexia results from a magnocellular deficit related to visual processing, or that it is related to a cerebellar deficit"

It could be argued that it requires a section in iteself, but at least it's own paragraph within this section. It should cover Lovegroves original work using sinusoidal grating from 1986 through to the work carried out be reasearchers such as Stein, Cornelissen and Hansen that has followed up to now. I'm happy to give it a crack if other wikipedians agree its importance?

Kinkladze28 11:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Hi Kinkladze28

I intoduced this in the Theory of dyslexia section from a research paper. Those who wrote this paper have worked with Stein, who has also been involved with many of the leading UK APD researchers. You coulkd create a seperate wiki page devoted to the theory, or may be add a couple mmore line and esdit the existing text. Seperate sections for seperate theories may confuse the readers. Also have a look at http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/126/4/841 best wishes dolfrog 11:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Multiple thouoght entry theory

Im no expert, but my grandfather who is a Doctor (Radiation Oncologist)had rather severe dyslexia, and upon doing some research on it and based on his own experience he found that dyslexia was a condition in which the brain processes information with without discerning and selecting what information is altogether necessary o come to a complete understanding. For example, when the average persoon sees a word, usually about three threads of thought come into their head (phonics, meaning, context, etc.) but for a dyslexic instead of three, maybe 12 or 15 thoughts may come into their head —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.74.160.200 (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

"Not due to an intelligence below the normal range"

I didn't read the whole discussion page, but I noticed there was a discussion about "normal to above normal intelligence." However, the latter is not NPOV. People who are identified as dyslexic can of course have average, above average or below average intelligence. Only people whose intelligence falls below the normal range, that is, people with a mental retardation, are not given this label because their problems with reading and writing are seen as secondary to their lack of general cognitive abilities.

I have also checked the Government of Canada’s Health Portal. It does not say "in spite of normal to above average intelligence". It says: "In fact, many people with dyslexia are above average in intelligence." That's true. However, it doesn't deny the fact that many people, with and without dyslexia, are below average in intelligence. Strictly speaking, 49 % of the population. ;) So I'm going to change that part as well in the article. Cheers! Lova Falk 18:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Armarshall for a very accurate correction! Lova Falk 07:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Additions must be verifiable and sourced

Wikipedia is not an op ed section -- I've moved and tagged the two paragraphs beginning with "Dyslexia is a man made problem." because while they reflect a valid and debatable opinion, they are not fact, and they are not attributed. Who says this? The poster? Or is there an agency or organization that has adopted or promulgated this view. If it is opinion only, then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia -- or else it needs to be labeled.

I really think those two paragraphs belong on the Discussion page, not the article ... but I'm leaving them to give the contributor a chance to clean up. Armarshall 02:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Dyslexia is a man made problem. If man had not created a visual notation of speech there would be no dyslexia. case proved. very simple logic and commonsense, nothing complicated. Anyone saying differernt is trying to sell something

dolfrog 21:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

To Gerard Duncan

I reverted your changes to the definition of dyslexia --as your revision is not in accordance with current thinking, as adopts the now disfavored "discrepency" model of dyslexia. Your input is very welcome, but the previous definition is the product of many individuals' contributions over time and I do not think it is appropriate for any user to make such a major change without some discussion at the outset. So can we talk about it here?

Here is what you wrote:

Dyslexia' is a deficiency in reading and/or writing abilities, at a level below what is expected in comparison with an individual's other cognitive abilities (level of intelligence)[1], despite conventional teaching and adequate sociocultural opportunity. It is characterized by difficulties with phonological processing[2], automatic naming skills and working memory. It's effects can be seen in spoken language as well as written language.

Here is the current, restored text:

Dyslexia is a condition or learning disability which causes difficulty with reading and/or writing, and which is not due to an intelligence below the normal range or to sensory problems such as poor eyesight. Dyslexia is characterized by difficulty or inability to learn adequate reading or writing skills despite conventional teaching and adequate sociocultural opportunity.

I'm not altogether happy with the current version, but I think it is closer to a consensus view. Anything adopting the "discrepancy" view is just going to be the source of a lot more discussion and conflict.

So all I am saying is lets have some more give and take before making changes to the introductory paragraph. I actually like what you wrote a lot, I just thought it was a pretty major change and would like more input before is fully incorporated. So maybe if I don't hear from you, I'll try to restore it but also address the specific problems that are causing me some concern. Armarshall 02:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are some more details as to where I had problems with the changed text:

"Dyslexia' is a deficiency in reading and/or writing abilities" - individuals with dyslexia can and do overcome reading and writing problems (as evidenced by many famous/high achieving individuals -- but most still view themselves as dyslexic because of other aspects of dyslexia. So I don't think it is accurate to say that dyslexia IS a deficiency.

at a level below what is expected in comparison with an individual's other cognitive abilities (level of intelligence) - this is the "discrepency model" that has been rejected by recent research. The problem is that there is a lot of brain research to evidence that the neural correlates of dyslexia are not related to other cognitive abilities one way or another

It is characterized by difficulties with phonological processing[2], automatic naming skills and working memory I would be o.k. with this if it were changed to "usually characterized" and "and/or working memory" -- because those characteristics are neither an exhaustive nor exclusive list of characteristics. I think that more accurately reflects the most common tests used to diagnose dyslexia rather than the symptoms. For example, few people would know that they have difficulty with "automatic naming" unless they were tested for that .... but many dyslexics are fully aware that they have difficulty telling left from right, a characteristic that is not the subject of diagnostic testing. Armarshall 04:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I felt the the altered (Gerard) version had several good points, is there any way they can be combined? will have a look at how in detail when I have more time --Nate1481(^talk/_contribs) 08:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I just saw this now, I agree with your points, it is how I worded it that caused problems. I am completely open to any suggestions. Gerard Duncan 03:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

History of Dyslexia - NPOV

I am removing the NPOV marker from the "History" section because I don't understand why it is there -- it seems that the stuff in that part of the article is stated in very neutral and unobjectionable terms, and accurately recounts "history" -- so my guess is that whoever put the NPOV marker there was referring to some other questionable content that is either gone or is in another section of the article.

Of course it would help if anyone who wants to replace it would simply explain the area of disagreement. Armarshall 07:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to re-insert the NPOV marker into history again(not to imply it was me that had done so in the first place), but I think it may have been inserted as the past two paragrahs may be POV. I don't know how credible Thomas G. West is and how accurate and accepted his studies are now and at the time, as to wheter it is prudent to keep these as they are or completely remove them, I'll leave for others to disscuss/decide for now.

"Thomas G. West, towards the end of the 20th century, suggested that many dyslexics are visual spatial thinkers who are wired for the big picture — designed to process information in pictures rather than words. West believed that our education system is inadvertently biased against the "Einstein gene", and thereby all our most original and gifted thinkers. To support this view he has examined the difficult early educational experiences of five Nobel prize winners or near-winners: Einstein, Edison, Marconi, Churchill and Faraday.

West's theory is echoed in the work of Ronald Dell Davis, author of The Gift of Dyslexia, who describes dyslexia as the outgrowth of a primarily picture-thinking mind. Davis posits that the symptoms associated with dyslexia arise from disorientation that results from confusion over language symbols. This view has also been supported indirectly by the research of Linda Silverman, author of Upside Down Brilliance -- the title reflects the counter-intuitive experiences of those who find the easy tasks difficult and hard tasks easy. Echoes of this theory can be traced to the emerging discipline of Neuro-linguistic Programming.""

--Gerard Duncan 13:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think as worded it is clear that West, Davis & Silverman simply are offering different theories -- all are well known, published, and widely read. It doesn't matter if they are widely accepted because the article doesn't say that they are - it says that West "suggested" x in his book, Davis "posits"- etc. I think actually it would be NPOV issue to leave off reports of different points of view -- the whole point of a "history" section is to try to include major trends & voices to accurately reflect the overall developments. So I think words like "suggested", "argued", "theorized", "proposed"etc. keep things in perspective -- whereas words like "found", "discovered", "proved", "explained" would show a bias.

But maybe that could be resolved with some sort of subtitle to indicate that these represent new or minority points of view. ("Alternative Theories"?) Armarshall 03:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I was not implying that the specific theories were not widely accepted or known, just the credibility(history worthy?) of people who put forward the theories themselves,(as in, are the people who put forward the theory accepted as note-worthy) which you made clear is not in question, and that they are, and it should be in the article. I don't see any reason to include a subtitle such as "Alternative Theories". I was perharps being overly critical due to my then lack of knowledge. --Gerard Duncan 17:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gerard

The groups of dyslexics West is refering to are Visual-Spatial Learners, who have a conflicting Learning Style, which causes the to have problems with using the Text communication system and therefore maks them dyslexic. This grouphas previously been miss diagnosed as being ADD, ADHD, or even the High Functioning end of the Autistic Spectrum. This can alsoi apply to some who have Auditory Ptrocessing Disorder. There are so many areas of overlap, and \ lack of professional understanding of the wider range of isues outside of their narrow areas of specialisation. Which is part of the real problem of trying to understand all of the issues that can cause dyslexia, the professionals have tunel vision to their own speciality. Further information regarding VSL canm be obtained from Dr. Linda Silvermans organisation Visual-Spatial Resource! http://www.visualspatial.org/index.htm we also have published some useful articles on the APDUK web site which may be of interest. Teaching Reading to VSLs http://www.learningstyles.apduk.org/vslteachread.htm Reading Readiness for VSLs http://www.learningstyles.apduk.org/vsl_lks_reading.htm VSL Spelling http://www.learningstyles.apduk.org/vsl_lks_spell.htm The Power of Visual Thinking - What is Thinking http://www.learningstyles.apduk.org/powerofvt1.htm

On a personal level. My youngest son is one such child who is a Visual-Spatial Learner, my other 2 son have Auditory Processing Disorder as their underlying cause of dyslexia, of which my eldest also has an element of dyspraxia that contributes to his dyslexic problems. I have both of these issues as my underlying cuases of my dyslexic symptoms So it ismore abot being more inclusive and less about choosing and using one theory to define dyslexia as if it were a condition.

best wishes dolfrog 15:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

New definition - introductory paragraph

OK, based on discussions above, here is my proposal for a new introductory paragraph. I suggest replacing:

CURRENT:

Dyslexia is a condition or learning disability which causes difficulty with reading and/or writing, and which is not due to an intelligence below the normal range or to sensory problems such as poor eyesight. Dyslexia is characterized by difficulty or inability to learn adequate reading or writing skills despite conventional teaching and adequate sociocultural opportunity.

with NEW:

Dyslexia is a learning difference usually manifested as a difficulty with written language, particularly with reading and spelling. It is the result of a difference in the brain area that deals with processing language. It is separate and distinct from reading difficulties resulting from other causes, such as deficiencies in intelligence, physical problems with vision or hearing, or by poor or inadequate reading instruction.

This gets rid of the term "condition" and replaces "disability" with "difference", which should address some of the objections raised above.

I also suggest replacing these two paragraphs:

CURRENT:

Dyslexia primarily impacts reading and writing abilities; however, other difficulties have been reported including deficits in processing spoken language as well as non-language difficulties.

Despite popular belief, dyslexia is not caused by reversing the order of letters in reading, nor is it a visual perception deficit that involves reading letters or words backwards or upside down

With the following NEW:

Dyslexia is most commonly characterized by difficulties with phonetic decoding, accurate and/or fluent word recognition, and by poor spelling. However, dyslexia may also be associated with difficulties in processing spoken language, left-right confusion, difficulties working with numbers, and/or issues with balance and coordination. Dyslexic individuals may also reverse or transpose letters when writing or confuse letters such as b, d, p, q, especially in childhood. However, dyslexia is not a visual problem that involves reading letters or words backwards or upside down, nor are such reversals a defining characteristic of dyslexia.

Comments welcome.

Armarshall 08:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think keeping disability in would be fine, and personaly would do so. Dyslexia is a disability IN RELATION to a language that is expressed in (as a side: semi/inconsistant?) phonetically related icons(letters). Maybe even instead of using “learning difference/disability”, we could use reading disability (there is a wiki article on the exect meaning), but this is only a suggestion to see what people think.

“It is the result of a difference in the brain area that deals with processing language.” Maybe rather “Evidence suggests that it is a result of a difference in the how the brain processes phonically written and/or verbal language” The reason I said phonically written and/or verbal, rather than “proccessing language” is because I think it needs to be defined what is meant by language, it has a very broad, and needs to be defined somewhat.

”It is separate and distinct from reading difficulties resulting from other causes, such as deficiencies in intelligence, physical problems with vision or hearing, or by poor or inadequate reading instruction. “

The above sentence inadvertantly rules out a neurological (brain) cause for dyslexia, as physical means ANYTHING related to body fucntion, including brain fuctioning. So I sugest the following:

“It is separate and distinct from reading difficulties resulting from other causes, such as deficiencies in intelligence, non-neurological deficiency with vision or hearing, or from poor or inadequate reading instruction.”

So, to re-cap:

Dyslexia is a reading disability usually manifested as a difficulty with written language, particularly with reading and spelling. Evidence suggests that it is a result of a difference in the how the brain processes phonically written and/or verbal language. It is separate and distinct from reading difficulties resulting from other causes, such as deficiencies in intelligence, non-neurological deficiency with vision or hearing, or from poor or inadequate reading instruction.

The second "NEW" paragraph seems fine to me.

--Gerard Duncan 15:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Gerard wrote: Maybe rather “Evidence suggests that it is a result of a difference in the how the brain processes phonically written and/or verbal language” I think the qualifier of "phonically" would completely exclude dyslexics with the dyseidetic subtype, which I believe represents about 30% of dyslexics (don't remember the exact stats right now, but it's a significantly large minority of cases) - see this link for a definition: http://www.audiblox2000.com/learning_disabilities/dyseidetic.htm --

See also: http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar00/dyslexia.html (re processing speed issues).

Also, dyslexia does exist with non-phonetic languages, such as Chinese, though it is unclear whether the underlying brain issues are the similar or different (hot topic for research). So I'd want to leave off "phonically" in the initial paragraph - I think that issue is addressed in my proposed revision to the 3rd paragraph on the page, "Dyslexia is most commonly characterized by difficulties with phonetic decoding..."

My concern with the use of the phrase "reading disability" is that it also excludes some of the other issues (word retrieval, processing speed, short term memory) that tend to be associated with dyslexia. For example, I just read a study by TR Miles where dyslexics and non-dyslexics were asked to memorize and repeat sentences verbatim -- it was very easy for the nondyslexics, but many of the dyslexics had tremendous difficulties getting the exact words, though they were all able to repeat the gist of the sentences. See - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17009768&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum

But I admit that I'm not all that happy with my own phrase, "learning difference" - and "reading disability" at least keys into a good stub link that could be a place to list other, related disabilities. So.... how about, "Dyslexia is a type of reading disability -- to me, that suggests that dyslexia fits into the larger category of "reading disabilities" but that it does not in itself equate with the words "reading disability".

I agree with your other comment about "non-neurological" rather than "physical", so now I've got:

Dyslexia is a type of reading disability usually manifested as a difficulty with written language, particularly with reading and spelling. Evidence suggests that it is a result of a difference in the how the brain processes written and/or verbal language. It is separate and distinct from reading difficulties resulting from other causes, such as deficiencies in intelligence, non-neurological deficiency with vision or hearing, or from poor or inadequate reading instruction.

Armarshall 03:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Arm I have no problem withy the most recent version of the fist paragraph especially as the phonetic reference has been withdrawn. so

Dyslexia is a type of reading disability usually manifested as a difficulty with written language, particularly with reading and spelling. Evidence suggests that it is a result of a difference in the how the brain processes written and/or verbal language. It is separate and distinct from reading difficulties resulting from other causes, such as deficiencies in intelligence, non-neurological deficiency with vision or hearing, or from poor or inadequate reading instruction.

is fine But I have a few reservations regarding the second paragraph as it stands.

"Dyslexia is most commonly characterized by difficulties with phonetic decoding, accurate and/or fluent word recognition, and by poor spelling."

again the problem is the word "phonetic" although this is one important form of decoding some dyslexics may have other decoding issues, as mentioned above not all visual ntoations of speech have a phonetic base. and yet theselanguages have dylexic people who have problems decoding thier written language.

"However, dyslexia may also be associated with difficulties in processing spoken language, left-right confusion, difficulties working with numbers, and/or issues with balance and coordination."

this begins to imply that dyslexia is a condition.

my alternative.

"Many who have the dyslexic symptoms, difficulties with reading, wrting, and spelling, also have common shared symptoms such as poor short term memory skills, poor personal oragisation skills, problems processing spoeken language, left-right confusion, difficulties with decoding numbers, and issues with balance and co-ordination. There are many permutations of the possible combinations that any one individual may have, and this will depend on the type of underlying cause or co-mobid causes of dyslexia, such as Auditory Processing Disorder, the corresponding Visual Processing Disorder, ADD, ADHD, Dyspraxia.... and the degree of severity of each condition; or conflicting Learning Style."

may a bit too long , but I am sure you could edit it. The underlying causes are key because they determine how best to cope with the individuals symptoms, and the selection of remedial programs. I am a member of an adult dyslexia forum and it has a special section for these programs. They all work for some but not all, and each program works for different groups of dyslexics. Have a look at the therapies section http://beingdyslexic.co.uk/forums/index.php?s=5759069348143e7a569e8566f9318986&showforum=34 you may also like to have look at the related disabilities section http://beingdyslexic.co.uk/forums/index.php?s=5759069348143e7a569e8566f9318986&showforum=45 (and i know that one dolfrog a frequent contributor lol)

I need to stop now, I broke my arm just below the shoulder two weeks ago, and I am limited to one finger typing. best wishes dolfrog 13:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about unwittingly excluding visual type dyslexia, that was unintentional and I was meant to at the time of original writing, rewrite what I had wrote.

Armarshall Wrote: “My concern with the use of the phrase "reading disability" is that it also excludes some of the other issues (word retrieval, processing speed, short term memory) that tend to be associated with dyslexia.”

I was under the impression that dyslexia referred to the specific “reading disability”, not the other symptoms that are common among people with dyslexia such as word retrieval, processing speed, short term memory, etc. Do these things fall under “dyslexia” or are they common traits among people with dyslexia because there are common cause/s for dyslexia?

Maybe at the start it should be clearly stated that there are 2 main distinct subsets (sub-groups?) of dyslexia(Dysphonic/Auditory processing disorders/type and Dyseidetic/visual processing type)(as that would illeaviate some of the confusion with defining the broad term dyslexia)+ description of what makes it dyslexia, with common traits separated, and then other factors which visual and auditory groups don't/may not account for?

Good points, “Dyslexia is a type of reading disability“. Rather than “Dyslexia is a reading disability”

Considering all that, I 'much, much prefer what you wrote over what is currently in the article. And offer this as a suggestion rather than an objection. (edit, started typing before dolfrog's input, so we may bring up similar issues and I dont have time right now to re-read and rewrite what I wrote atm) Gerard Duncan 14:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

---Comment regarding use of "disability" instead of "difference"---

To support the suggestion to use the term "disability" rather than "difference," the International Dyslexia Association defines the term dyslexia as follows: Dyslexia ... "is referred to as a learning disability because dyslexia can make it very difficult for a student to succeed academically in the typical instructional environment." http://www.interdys.org/fact%20sheets/Basics%20FS%20N.PDF

I recognize there is a difference here in that the IDA uses the term "learning disability" and you are proposing the term "reading disability." I only bring up the IDA reference in support of the use of the term "disability." Because of society's dependence on written language, dyslexia is indeed disabling in that it seriously impedes day-to-day life functions. smoran 10:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gerard

you wrote "I was under the impression that dyslexia referred to the specific “reading disability”, not the other symptoms that are common among people with dyslexia such as word retrieval, processing speed, short term memory, etc. Do these things fall under “dyslexia” or are they common traits among people with dyslexia because there are common cause/s for dyslexia?"

you are right dyslexia does refer to a specific reading disability, and not other symptoms the other common symptoms are a part of the various underlying cuases of dyslexia, for instance word retrieval issues can be part of APD so all dyslexics who have APD as an underlying cause my have word retrieval problems, I know I do LoL. So from my perspective having the symptom of word retrieval problems, and the symptoms of dyslexia(reading problems) are all result from me having APD. Many other underlying causes wil have different sets of shared or common symptoms that includes the dsylexic symptoms.

Short term memory issues can be created by having to run coping straties in the working memory to work around an information processing deficit. we start to develop coping strastegies subconsciously from the first recognition of the information processing problem. For some this could be from birth. These coping strategies have to run in the short term memory, which is like the RAM of a computer, having very limited space in comparison to the long term memory or hard drive. To enable these coping strategies to run effectively, something has to go to make way ,and these functions that have to make way, are the working memory funcions those who do not need to run coping stategies use to remember day to day issues and personal organisation issues. and because these coping strategies are developed subconsciously we do not have much conscious control regarding their behavior. So yes dyslexia is only aboy reading problems but it can be part of a wider set of common symptoms depending on the package of underlying problems. best wishes dolfrog 16:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, the problem is that there is not uniform *agreement* over how many subtypes there are of dyslexia, or of whether or not the non-reading issues are part of dyslexia or a dyslexic syndrome or are separate diagnoses or causes. So what I am trying to do is write an opening, introductory paragraph that fairly encompasses all of the areas of disagreement - without trying to explain them all -- with the expectation that people can expand upon the various competing theories and ideas in appropriate subsections ("types of dyslexia" "theories about causes" etc.) For example - if you go to http://www.macalester.edu/psychology/whathap/UBNRP/Dyslexia/types.html you will see a good summary of the various different ways that dyslexia has been broken down into subtypes. Dolfrog's post about "theories" below is an excellent summation of the predominant view points as to causes of dyslexia, and obviously each theory can arguably produce a different set of symptoms.

Another example: dolfrog sees APD as being separate and apart from dyslexia, but an important cause. I respect that point of view, and I 100% agree that APD is very important to discuss, but I see it differently: I think they both APD and dyslexia stem from the same causes and are essentially different/overlapping manifestations of the same thing. That's because I personally agree with the Davis/West theory that dyslexics are right-brained, picture-thinkers who have to go through an extra mental step to process words, whether those words are read or heard. I think that there is a cause(the way the brain processes info) that is separate from the symptoms (the habits that have developed or been learned as a result of the way the brain processes info, which vary depending on individual experience.).

But the point is, I don't think that any one theory/view should prevail in the introductory paragraph -- and I am trying to get things written in a way which makes sense and is fair to the various major theories/approaches that have emerged. And I fully expect these things to be explored in greater depth in appropriate sections. Anyway, I do appreciate all the feedback. Armarshall 05:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

OK - I did it -- Keeping in mind Dolfrog's broken hand, and the consequent need to curtail unneeded debate -- I think I have managed to take in all observations made above, incorporating Dolfrog's suggestions - and replace the text, complete with links and citations. Armarshall 10:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there really was a difference in agreement over “how many subtypes there are of dyslexia“. At least not from where I was coming from. Just difference in wording, and how to convey what dyslexia is without bias on opinion as well as bias towards a “type” or “cause” of dyslexia. It was pure semantics on what the word dyslexia actually means. Which is very important, as it sets a president for the rest of the article.

But the point is, I don't think that any one theory/view should prevail in the introductory paragraph -- and I am trying to get things written in a way which makes sense and is fair to the various major theories/approaches that have emerged. And I fully expect these things to be explored in greater depth in appropriate sections. Anyway, I do appreciate all the feedback.

Agreed, the intro paragraph much better reflects that now

Some Theories of Dyslexia

"Theories of developmental dyslexia: insights from a multiple case study of dyslexic adults" is a research paper dating back to 2002 -2003 and the aim of the research was to compare the Theories of dyselxia that prevailed in 2002 (i) the phonological theory, (ii) the magnocellular (auditory and visual) theory and (iii) the cerebellar theory.

This is now avialable to read on line or as a free PDF download http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/126/4/841

as this is a free download, i thought i would be a good idea to copy the description of the theories examined during this research. Personally I do not see these as competing theories, but different perspectives on the same problems.

The Phonological Theory The phonological theory postulates that dyslexics have a specific impairment in the representation, storage and/or retrieval of speech sounds. It explains dyslexics' reading impairment by appealing to the fact that learning to read an alphabetic system requires learning the grapheme±phoneme correspondence, i.e. the correspondence between letters and constituent sounds of speech. If these sounds are poorly represented, stored or retrieved, the learning of grapheme± phoneme correspondences, the foundation of reading for alphabetic systems, will be affected accordingly (Bradley and Bryant, 1978; Vellutino, 1979; Snowling, 1981; Brady and Shankweiler, 1991). While theorists have different views about the nature of the phonological problems, they agree on the central and causal role of phonology in dyslexia. The phonological theory therefore postulates a straightforward link between a cognitive deficit and the behavioural problem to be explained. At the neurological level, it is usually assumed that the origin of the disorder is a congenital dysfunction of left-hemisphere perisylvian brain areas underlying phonological representations, or connecting between phonological and orthographic representations. Support for the phonological theory comes from evidence that dyslexic individuals perform particularly poorly on tasks requiring phonological awareness, i.e. conscious segmentation and manipulation of speech sounds. However, evidence for poor verbal short-term memory and slow automatic naming in dyslexics also points to a more basic phonological de®cit, perhaps having to do with the quality of phonological representations, or their access and retrieval (Snowling, 2000). Anatomical work (Galaburda et al., 1985; Geschwind and Galaburda, 1985) and functional brain imaging studies support the notion of a left perisylvian dysfunction as a basis for the phonological deficit (Paulesu et al., 1996, 2001; Shaywitz et al., 1998; Brunswick et al., 1999; McCrory et al., 2000; Pugh et al., 2000; Temple et al., 2001; Shaywitz et al., 2002). In order to better differentiate the phonological theory from the others, we discuss here only the strong version of the theory: that the cognitive deficit is specific to phonology. Indeed, challengers of the phonological theory do not dispute the existence of a phonological deficit and its contribution to reading retardation; rather, they uphold that the disorder is much more extended, having its roots in general sensory, motor or learning processes, and that the phonological deficit is just one aspect or consequence of the more general disorder.

The rapid auditory processing theory The most obvious way to challenge the specificity of the phonological de®cit is to postulate that it is secondary to a more basic auditory deficit. This is the claim of the rapid auditory processing theory, which specifies that the deficit lies in the perception of short or rapidly varying sounds (Tallal, 1980; Tallal et al., 1993). Support for this theory arises from evidence that dyslexics show poor performance on a number of auditory tasks, including frequency discrimination (Mc////ly and Stein, 1996; Ahissar et al., 2000) and temporal order judgement (Tallal, 1980; Nagarajan et al., 1999) (see reviews by Farmer and Klein, 1995; McArthur and Bishop, 2001). Abnormal neurophysiological responses to various auditory stimuli have also been demonstrated (Mc////ly and Stein, 1996; Nagarajan et al., 1999; Kujala et al., 2000; Temple et al., 2000; Ruff et al., 2002). The failure to correctly represent short sounds and fast transitions would cause further difficulties in particular when such acoustic events are the cues to phonemic contrasts, as in /ba/ versus /da/. There is indeed also evidence that dyslexics may have poorer categorical perception of certain contrasts (Mody et al., 1997; Adlard and Hazan, 1998; Serniclaes et al., 2001). In this view, the auditory deficit is therefore the direct cause, in the course of development, of the phonological deficit, and hence of the difficulty in learning to read. The original version of the auditory theory made no particular claim at the biological level, but we will see below that this is now specified within the magnocellular theory.

The visual theory The visual theory (Lovegrove et al., 1980; Livingstone et al., 1991; Stein and Walsh, 1997) re¯ects another longstanding tradition in the study of dyslexia, that of considering it as a visual impairment giving rise to difficulties with the processing of letters and words on a page of text. This may take the form of unstable binocular fixations, poor vergence (Cornelissen et al., 1993; Stein and Fowler, 1993; Eden et al., 1994), or increased visual crowding (Spinelli et al., 2002). The visual theory does not exclude a phonological deficit, but emphasizes a visual contribution to reading problems, at least in some dyslexic individuals. At the biological level, the proposed aetiology of the visual dysfunction is based on the division of the visual system into two distinct pathways that have different roles and properties: the magnocellular and parvocellular pathways. The theory postulates that the magnocellular pathway is selectively disrupted in certain dyslexic individuals, leading to deficiencies in visual processing, and, via the posterior parietal cortex, to abnormal binocular control and visuospatial attention (Stein and Walsh, 1997; Hari et al., 2001). Evidence for magnocellular dysfunction comes from anatomical studies showing abnormalities of the magnocellular layers of the lateral geniculate nucleus (Livingstone et al., 1991), psychophysical studies showing decreased sensitivity in the magnocellular range, i.e. low spatial frequencies and high temporal frequencies, in dyslexics (Lovegrove et al., 1980; Cornelissen et al., 1995), and brain imaging studies (Eden et al., 1996).

The cerebellar theory Yet another view is represented by the automaticity/ cerebellar theory of dyslexia (Nicolson and Fawcett, 1990; Nicolson et al., 2001) (henceforth referred to as the cerebellar theory). Here the biological claim is that the dyslexic's cerebellum is mildly dysfunctional and that a number of cognitive difficulties ensue. First, the cerebellum plays a role in motor control and therefore in speech articulation. It is postulated that retarded or dysfunctional articulation would lead to deficient phonological representations. Secondly, the cerebellum plays a role in the automatization of overlearned tasks, such as driving, typing and reading. A weak capacity to automatize would affect, among other things, the learning of grapheme±phoneme correspondences. Support for the cerebellar theory comes from evidence of poor performance of dyslexics in a large number of motor tasks (Fawcett et al., 1996), in dual tasks demonstrating impaired automatization of balance (Nicolson and Fawcett, 1990), and in time estimation, a non-motor cerebellar task (Nicolson et al., 1995). Brain imaging studies have also shown anatomical, metabolic and activation differences in the cerebellum of dyslexics (Rae et al., 1998; Nicolson et al., 1999; Brown et al., 2001; Leonard et al., 2001).

The magnocellular theory Finally, there is a unifying theory that attempts to integrate all the findings mentioned above. A generalization of the visual theory, the magnocellular theory (Stein and Walsh, 1997) postulates that the magnocellular dysfunction is not restricted to the visual pathways but is generalized to all modalities (visual and auditory as well as tactile). Furthermore, as the cerebellum receives massive input from various magnocellular systems in the brain, it is also predicted to be affected by the general magnocellular defect (Stein et al., 2001). Through a single biological cause, this theory therefore manages to account for all known manifestations of dyslexia: visual, auditory, tactile, motor and, consequently, phonological (for an attentional variant see Hari and Renvall, 2001). Beyond the evidence pertaining to each of the theories described previously, evidence specifically relevant to the magnocellular theory includes magnocellular abnormalities in the medial as well as the lateral geniculate nucleus of dyslexics' brains (Livingstone et al., 1991; Galaburda et al., 1994), poor performance of dyslexics in the tactile domain (Grant et al., 1999; Stoodley et al., 2000), and the co-occurrence of visual and auditory problems in certain dyslexics (Witton et al., 1998; Cestnick, 2001; van Ingelghem et al., 2001). Although the auditory and visual theories have been presented here separately for historical and logical reasons, their supporters now agree that visual and auditory disorders in dyslexia are part of a more general magnocellular dysfunction. We will therefore not discuss the visual and auditory theories independently. Rather, we will restrict the discussion to a comparison between the phonological, cerebellar and magnocellular theories.

I am sure that there are many other theories, but these are worth cosidering. best wishes dolfrog 14:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Double deficit hypothesis

There is a stub article titled double deficit. This term refers to a theory proposed by Maryann Wolfe and is better known as the "double deficit hypothesis." The theory is specifically about dyslexia and not about reading difficulties in general.

I believe this stub should either be merged with the dyslexia article or set up so that it is a closely related article.

Thoughts?

smoran 19:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

In theory, a good idea - but I when I was editing the "dyslexia" topic I got a message from the system saying that the topic was growing large (52K) and to consider splitting it up -- so I don't think there's enough *room* in the dyslexia topic for detailed exploration of all the different hypotheses. (See dolfrog's post above for the others). So I think merger might not work well in the long run simply because there are so many competing theories to have room detailed discussion of each in every topic. (Apparently 52K is pushing it, and at 80-100K they really want to see articles broken up). Armarshall 23:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Very funny that you should mention this in light of the proposal I was just creating --- when I went to save the text of my proposal to this discussion page, I got a message saying that the page had been changed while I was editing it ---- presumably the comment you just made. Take a look at my proposal below. :-) smoran 01:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Another interesting theory to add to the collection another variation on tyhe dyslexic theme with more technobabble best wishes dolfrog 14:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to create set of dyslexia-related articles

There is more than enough material to be covered on this topic to create an article series, and in my opinion the article would benefit from having summarized sections with links to sub-articles that contain the details.

This approach would enable us to provide detailed information about specific subtopics that seem to require more comprehensive coverage, such as the dyslexia theories mentioned in the above discussion topic, without overwhelming the main article.

Here is a link to information about what a series of articles looks like: Wikipedia:Article series. Another relevant article to using this approach is Wikipedia:Summary style.

Does anyone have strong objections to going this route? smoran 01:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%... and thanks for posting those links -- it's a good start. I assume that the process of the summary-style or article series is a evolutionary one, that develops over time as the sub-articles are developed. Armarshall 07:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in creating such a series, but that's my understanding. It is also OK to create stub articles for sections that we think warrant more comprehensive coverage, and to create the links to the stubs from the relevant section. Then, as people have interest or information to contribute, the stubs can be filled out. Any ideas about where would be a good place to start? I'm thinking that the "Theories" section is as good a place as any. Thoughts? smoran 10:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that "theories" is a good starting point - and in fact even before you had posted, had thought that my next project might be to take the dolfrog's reference above and use it as a starting point. I actually had already done something like that with the article, Perceptual Noise Exclusion Hypothesis - at the time I read that research it seemed important, but I didn't think it appropriate to have it take up much space in the "dyslexia" article, so I had created the separate article and simply added a brief sentence and link to the "Biological Basis of Dyslexia" section. So you might take a look a that as a model for how the shorter articles can be presented. It seems like a good for topics where there is ongoing research, as there is a continual influx of new research to report -- so separate topics provide a place for that sort of thing, without causing undue focus in the main article to be placed on whichever study happens to be most recent or gotten the most press coverage. Armarshall 11:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

insult

Today - May 29, 2007 the Drudge Report has an article from England about dyslexia. It appears that several reasearchers, after many years of running a hoax, are admitting that dyslexia is to rich kids what dumb is to the poor. Well-to-do parents will not allow their kids to be classified as dumb. The English have up to 10% of their kids, and occasionally a lot more of theie college students as dyslexic. I have read that 25% of Harvard students have to take remedial reading ( at Harvard ).159.105.80.141 11:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Any sources? or is this just trolling.--Nate1481(^talk/_contribs) 13:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't look at the Drudge report, and given my opinion of Drudge I don't intend to - but this appears to be simply a rehash of an article that appeared in the Times this weekend, and basically have been quoted out of context -- the actual Times report and clarifying text have already been incorporated in the "Controversy" section as follows:

Julian Elliott, a psychologist at Durham University in the UK, has said that he has found no evidence to identify the condition and believes it should be rediagnosed as a reading difficulty. According to Elliot, "(parents} don’t want their child to be considered lazy, thick or stupid. If they get called this medically diagnosed term, dyslexic, then it is a signal to all that it’s not to do with intelligence.”[42] Elliot believes that children of all levels of intelligence may struggle with learning to read, and that all can be helped equally by similar educational strategies. He feels that resources are wasted on diagnosis and testing, and favors early intervention programs for all struggling readers. [43]

Basically, Elliott doesn't believe in "dyslexia" per se, but he thinks that all kids with reading problems will respond to the same sorts of interventions, and he seems to be a well-meaning educator frustrated when he sees well-to-do families getting help and the children of parents who don't have the resources to get a diagnosis passed over. But it seems that the press likes to sensationalize things and turn it around to have him saying that dyslexia is a "hoax" -- which from the Guardian article that I found does not seem to at all reflect the man's opinions. Armarshall 23:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Arm

as you may have noticed I have had a bad few days in relation to my broken arm, the problem was with the pain killer tablets which caused fliud retension (my feet went up a shoe size. LoL so it is now just down to paracetamol. I agree with you about this media twisting the facts of the story, but this problem is partially cause because of the mythical condition of dyslexia. Similar problems arise with the multitude od remedial programs which may work for a small group of dyslexics, but the program provider can claim and sel the product as a magic cure efor all dyslexics because of the mythical concept that dyslexia is condition. But if they had to clinically diagnose the true underlying cuases of the dyslexic symptoms then the program providors woulkd have to stipulate which grops of dyslexics their program helps, which groups it does not help, and more importantly which groups it may cause harm. Just like the pharmacutical industry and the control of drugs and medecines. best wishes dolfrog

Im gonna use this card one more time, and it will sound like im being an arrogant prick, but still all the same. I have an IQ of 140, I am diagnosed dyslexic, I have no reading disablity, my disbaility is purely with organistaion, short term memoey, handwriting, and left-right diablitiy, that should settle it for anyone who thinks dyslexia is just a by-word for dumb by the rich. I dotn care wha tthe f***ing times says or any other newspaper, because I am a living testemant to its factual innacuracy. (arrogance shining out).172.206.11.173 10:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

hi user 172.206.11.173

from what you have described youy do not have the dyslexic symptoms which can only relate to having problems with reading writing and spelling. I am dyslexic and I also have a high IQ, it is why i cope with my dyslexia so well most of the time. You would appear to be desscribing one of the many underlying cuases of syslexia which cause you to organistaion, short term memoey, handwriting, and left-right diablitiy. most who have a sensory or motor information processing deficit sub consciously try to compensate for this deficit by creating coping strategies using alternative skill options which are the individuals natural strengths. you will have to run these coping strategies in your short term (working)memory, which others who do not have these edeficits do not have to run The short term or working memoery is like the RAM of a computer with very limited space so to enable you to run a coping strategy youy will subconscioudly have to prioritise which programs can run in your short tewrm or working memory. and so in comparison to other pers who do not have to run coiping strategies you may appear to have a poor short term memory, poor organiastional skills, etc. Those who have a high IQ are best at naturaly good at developing subcoinscious coping strategies and best able to conceal the full extert of their information processing deficits. hand writing issues can sometimes be a motor processing issue, Butyou really do need to investigate further and discover the real unerlying issues that are cuasing you problems

best wishes

dolfrog 19:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The Vision, reading, and spelling section contradicts the Visual dyslexia section

These two sections as they stand are contradictory.

the Vision reading and Spelling section seems to follow a distorted view of one of the other competing theories of dyslexia usually the phonological theory followers. the visual dyslexia section is more credable. Any comments about editing this present nonsense best wishes dolfrog 03:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems like the section title of "Vision Reading and Spelling" doesn't reflect the actual content of the section, which is more about how the processing of visual information and eye teaming/movement skills can in and of themselves cause difficulty with reading. Is this dyslexia? Many in the US would argue that it is *not* dyslexia but a visual processing deficit or visual dyspraxia, respectively.

I'm thinking that it might help to take a different approach to the content of the two sections. Here are some thoughts:

Regarding the Vision, Reading and Spelling section -- The content of this section implies that issues with reading and spelling are directly and exclusively related to issues with vision. We know, without at doubt, that this is not the case. This section is subordinated under the parent heading Characteristics. I'm thinking that we should re-focus this section on specific issues with reading and spelling, and remove the vision-related information from this section entirely.

Then, we create another section, at the same level as the Characteristics heading, called something like "Types of Dyslexia." The vision issues could be addressed in this section, perhaps associated with "dyseidetic" dyslexia, and the phonological type, perhaps associated with the term "dysphonetic dyslexia", could also be addressed.

So, we might have sections that are structured as follows:

Characteristics

General
Speech,hearing
Reading and spelling
Writing and motor skills
Mathematical skills

Types of dyslexia

Dyseidetic (visual or surface dyslexia)
Dysphonetic (phonological or deep dyslexia)
other?

Theories of Underlying Cause of Dyslexia

Phonological theory
Rapid auditory processing theory
Magnocellular theory
Dual-deficit theory
etc

Thoughts?

smoran 10:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi

re Types of dyslexia

there are the sensory information prcessing deficits both visual and auditory (which combined would include phonological)and the motor processing deficits such as dyspraxia. And then there are the conflicting dominant Learning styles. All the theories are looking at these basic issuewsfrom different proffesional perspectives and each profession wants to definer their theory as the true definition of dyslexia to maintain their side of the dyslexia industry. The REAL issues faced by REAL dyslexics are all of the problems included and discussed in all of the theories. And we have to stop opting for just the theory that applies to our own form of dyslexia or the theory that seems the best to define a mythical condition of dyslexia. This is an international forum so national issues will have to be put to one side.

best wishes

dolfrog 13:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC) there is no other option

Dolfrog: Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that my proposal for re-organizing the section is somehow skewed in favor of one theory over the others? If so, that was not my intent. Rather, I thought to provide summaries of each of the theories you mentioned in your post titled "Some Theories of Dyslexia."

???

smoran 15:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

the basic format of your suggested revision is fine

i was just looking at the content of the sub section "Types of Dyslexia" trying to simplify the technobabble. trying to avoid terms invented by one researcher or another as part of their research which means not very much outside of their very restricted world of communication or does not mean very much to other researchers.

best wishes dolfrog 15:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. Thanks for clarifying.

I'm guessing you're referring to terms like dyseidetic, surface dyslexia, and so forth. I don't have a particular preference for any of the terms I mentioned (a rose by any other name and all that), although I can understand why you might have interpreted my post that way. I agree completely that, whenever possible, we should avoid using terms that different researchers coin to set themselves apart from the rest. My only interest is in coming up with labels that are representative of the issue under discussion.

Would you identify at least some of the terms you find objectionable? Then we can work on coming up with some alternatives that would be meaningful to a wider audience.

Regards,

smoran 20:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sami

I think if we use the sensory terms related vision and sound, together with terms such as information processing, deficit, learning style, disorder, difference etc, neurological and common technical terms are fine as well.

The problem for some dyslexics like myself is that using words to describe the same thing causes information processing confusion. The other problem is that English is open to many sub cultural interpretations and technobabble can lead to many having to guess what is really meant, because they do no have time to research the technobabble, so we need to decifer the professionals technobabble so that fellow dyslexics can begin to understand the range of issues they may face, as well as non-dyslexics

best wishes 80.47.68.144 14:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Remedial Program Providers

I am concerned that this category for external links is just an open invitation for commercial providers to spam this topic. Is this really appropriate for Wikipedia? There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of different individuals, schools, and commercial sites claiming to offer services for dyslexia. Armarshall 06:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Arm

you are correct, they are commercial companies trying to sell their products, so are the BDA and others. All I did was to re arrange the existing links, and delete the dead links. So we will need to discuss this issue more. Do we edit out these types of links or may be create a link to a seperate Program providers page. This is part of the wider problem of dyslexia described as a condition, as it would logically follow that any program that helps any single group of dyslexics will also work for all dyslexics. this is not true, as we need different coping strategies dependant on the underlying causes of the dyslexic symptoms.

best wishes

dolfrog 12:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Individual service providers and developers of commercial intervention programs should not be listed in encyclopedia articles. I think it's fine, though, to include links to neutral information about research-based intervention methods and to nonprofit organizations that focus on relevant issues For example, there might be links to such organizations as the International Dyslexia Association and the Florida Center for Reading Research.

smoran 02:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort in re-arranging the links, and I think that for now they can be left as is-- but if it does start to attract an undue amount of spam/advertising links then we will have to take some sort of action. I'm not sure what that would be - I just can see it growing into a big problem given the number of people with something to sell. Armarshall 06:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Arm

Some programs such as Fast ForWord have an existing entry in the wikipedia system so we can add a link in the "also see" section to the programs wikipedia entry, which will be edited like this dyslexia page is, and so we can therefore delete links to specific program providers selling their services. Are you aware of any wiki references to "The Listening Program" which can benifit some dyslexics. I notice the one of the Wiki editors has recentlt reviewed our page anf has not added any review banners best wishes dolfrog 17:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that the same as Tomatis? If so, maybe the Tomatis entry could be expanded and a link could refer to that. Armarshall 08:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Arm the work behind The Listening Program has its roots in Tomatis but they are not the same programs both use sound to stimulate the auditory pathways, but in slightly different ways and different formats.

best wishes dolfrog 11:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The need to eliminate Technobabble, most who visit this page are Dyslexic after all

Technobabble is the product of independent researchers or groups of researchers defining the issues they are researching in their Jargon, which they invent as they progress. The result is mant terms having similar or the same meaning, which for most others only creates confusion. And much of the debate and disagreement regarding dyslexia is rooted in these various similar definition and different researcg backgrounds.

To best help fellow dyslkexic and others may be we should create a glossary of the jargon, and try to explain the issues using language that all can understand.

There is a research paper in the UK that states with the same set of symptoms you can get 4 different diagnosis depending on the type of Professional Consultant you see. Below is a quote from the research paperwhich at this moment in timeis not available for free, but for a fee at http://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=article&issn=1651%2d386X&issue=1&spage=4&volume=4

The ‘deeply rooted positions’ mentioned above include the different diagnosis and treatment that will result from a referral route through different professionals. For example, a child with identical symptoms may be classed as APD by an audiologist, SLI by a SLT, dyslexic by an educational psychologist, and autistic spectrum by a psychiatrist. The evolution of the APD concept has itself been more strongly influenced by ‘clinical judgement’ and commercial interests than by scientific rigour. This has resulted in a plethora of diagnostic tests and treatments lacking any scientific validity. Finally, there are the competing demands and interests of clinicians who have a problem to deal with, but no time to do the necessary research, and academics who, despite having plenty of research time, do not know how and usually do not wish to research a problem that is not precisely defined."

And we somehow have to make sense of the output of these self interested professionals.

best wishes dolfrog 13:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Audience for this article, and why it matters

No offense intended to anyone, but we cannot assume that most of the people who visit this page are dyslexic. This is an encyclopedia, so we have to assume that anyone could visit the page. To support this assertion, here are a couple of relevant quotes from Wikipedia style and guideline articles:

From Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View, one of the Wikipedia:Five Pillars:

"Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, which means it is a representation of human knowledge at some level of generality."

From Wikipedia:Feature article advice:

"Any given reader of Wikipedia, an international resource of dizzying diversity, may not be familiar with your topic or its importance. Make sure you put your topic in context and explain why it's encyclopedic, only, just to complicate matters, you have to do so without retelling the history of the world and crowding the article with indirectly related information. It's a difficult balancing act."

From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

"When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia."

This is not to say that Wikipedia isn't an appropriate place for more detailed information intended for a specific sub-audience. One of the beauties of an electronic encyclopedia is that you can "layer" information, with increasingly specific/detailed information that the general reader wouldn't be interested presented in subordinate articles.

From Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles, on the topic of Wikipedia:Summary Style

"The idea is to distribute information in such a way that Wikipedia can serve readers who want varying amounts of detail. It is up to the reader to choose how much detail they are exposed to (in order to avoid ...) overwhelming the reader with too much text at once. This is the style followed by such featured articles Cricket and Music of the Lesser Antilles.

"There are two main reasons for using Summary style in Wikipedia articles. One is that different readers desire different levels of details: some readers need just a quick summary and are satisfied by the leadsection; more people need a moderate amount of info, and will find the article suitable to their needs; yet others need a lot of detail, and will be interested in reading the subarticles. ...."

Best, smoran 23:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sami

my point was not to make this entry dyslexia vary frindly, which at this point in time is not technically possible, different coloured background and text options etc. My point was to cut through all of the double or treble speak used by professionals to describe the same thing, as they approach a very complextopic from different research, academic, or professional backgrounds. they use different terminoly to describe the same thing.

A good example is the recent addition to the theories of dyslexia "Perceptual Noise Exclusion Theory" which is in essence one of the pre 2000 Models of CAPD, which was even recognised in the UK pre APD recognition as Obscure Auditory Dysfunction (OAD), and was one of the one of the first symptoms recognised when CAPD was first identified with adults having problems processing aduitory information in early disco settings, which on further ivestigation became a lower sound level of pink sound, or cafeteria background noise. That is part of my APD diagnosis and was one of trhe first battery of tests that confirmed that confirmed my clinical diagnosis of having APD. We have to be able some how to bring all of these theories, researchers, proffesionals and agencies to speak with a single idea of what dyslkexia is and try to eliminate thwe confusion when these groups do not communicate with each other but only pursue their own agendas.

so we need this dyslexia page to tell dyslexia as dyslexics see it and live with itr and not as those who have their own different agendas see it.

That is the only way dyslexia can really be understood and described properly. The researchers only observesmall groups of dyslexic and cannever see all dyslexic and all of the issues, some are even unwilling to accept anytrhing outsaide of their own experience,

sorry about the rant, but I have been hitting too many brick walls on this subject for too many years and my sons have suffered due to professional ignorance and obduracy.

best wishes

dolfrog 11:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Dolfrog,

I understand your frustration -- rant away! I also have two kids who are dyslexic, my 24-year old son and my 12 year-old daughter, and many of their symptoms aren't "typical" either. Believe me, I could rant on any number of topics. Wanna talk about schools, school administrators and school teachers???? :-)

That said, an encyclopedia isn't the right place to fight a battle with researchers. The Wiki guidelines in this area are very clear:

We need to present only information for which there are verifiable, reliable sources, and we must cite those sources (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources);

If we are presenting controversial or non-majority views on the topic, we have to identify those as such and present the majority views as well. Furthermore, we have to give those views "due weight" in terms of how much information is provided on each viewpoint (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view ).

When we present opposing views, we must present them absolutely objectively; and we cannot include what is termed "original research" -- basically, personal experience doesn't count unless you find a reliable source and cite *that* (see Wikipedia:No original research).

So, what I would suggest in response to your issue is, we need to find the researchers who view dyslexia from the inside out, if you will, and make sure those differing views are presented clearly and fairly. But we still have to present the majority views, including their terminology, and give them "due weight."

See where I'm coming from on this?

smoran 17:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sami too many prodessionals hide behind technobabble to ilustrate their point, the problem is that sometimes that they are not aware of thge research and work of others and argue that they are always right. And sometimes miss the fact that they are duplicating the work of others. This is because they do not want to look outside of their narrow perceptions of life or becuase that is what theiur sponsers want them to say. So we have to do their thinking for them , and not neccessarily believing everything they say or print. The Agencies and organisations whoi claim to represent dyslexics have their own internal agendas regarding the products they promote, funding, and funraising. they prefer simplistic answers to complex problems to maintain their income. And then there is the dyslexia industry as a whole which makes money at the expense of the real problems faced by those who have the dyslexic symptoms.

For Dyslexics to have a fair chancer to understand the real issues that cxause their dysexic symptoms we have to make sure that this encyclopedia is free of the dyslexia industries BULLSHIT and tries to define the real underlying causes of dyslexia, and the theories regarding the underlying causess of dyslexia. Some theories may duplicate the definitiond or theories in other related conditions that are underlying causes of dyslexia and this needs to be highlighted.

I too could go on about schools or even my pet subject APD recognition in schools and the work place. APD recognition is being hindered by the lack of a real understanding of the full range od underlying causes and researched Theories of dyslexia in favour of the mythical condition of dyslexia promoted by the dyslexia industry wither vest internal agendas, which many unwittingly believe to be what dyslexia is about.

best wishes

dolfrog 04:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

A request about editing the TOC

I have noticed a little bit of a battle erupting over the TOC. I understand Nate's concern about the length of the TOC, but I have a request to Nate -- could you please refrain from messing with the TOC right now, because we are in the process of doing edits that have been discussed here (above). Dolfrog's efforts to add in a catalog of theories of dyslexia is specifically in line with issues discussed over the past week or so, but since Wikipidia is a collaberative process, I find it helpful to be able to look at the detailed TOC to see what he has done -- so that I can also make whatever additions I feel are appropriate-- and I believe there are a couple of others who have participated in the discussion who would like to be part of this process as well.

So ... can you please leave the TOC in place for now? I think that those of us who are interested in cleaning up this page will get around to making the whole thing more readable in the end, but it only makes the cleanup job harder if you mess with our visual guidepost. Armarshall 10:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem it was a suggestion. I understand where your point, it might be worth considering when page has stabilized.

The reason for the revert was if you look at the (now blocked) user who changed it they had been systematic undoing every edit I made. --Nate1481(^talk/_contribs) 11:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi just wanted a technobabble breakdown, what is TOC???? best wishes dolfrog 04:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

TOC = Table of Contents. smoran 04:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi all

first thank you sami I now know what this is about.

looking at the Overview which is good, there seems to be many repetitions of content in the "Biological basis of dyslexia", "Physiology", and "Facts and Figures" sections and some issues that have now been covered by the inclusion of the "theories of dyslexia" Do we needd to have all those organisations definitions of dyslexia which could be interpreted as their favoured theories and re stating of issues mentioned in the over view, and they are linked to in the links section. Not too sureif the Controversy section needs to be there, as the issues could be combined in an existing section or a new section combining some other existing sections(those mentioned above)All Prof Eliot is doing is trying to get a real dyslexia debate started around the researched theories of dyuslexia of which we now have some described in the Theories section and tomove away from the mythical definitions promoted by those who have their own agendas to exclude or ignore a great deal of current scientific research related to the dyslexic symptoms. ( one of my pet hate phrases used by teachers "our a body of opinion regarding dyslexia is...." and they ignore all research of the last decade.)

just a few ideas

best wishes dolfrog 06:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The different subsections of the "Theoris" and "Links" sections could be down graded frm editable subsections to just paragraph headings using the bold and heading size functions in the word processor. this wouls change the formatting of the article and reduce the TOC but not the overall content. dolfrog 08:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Dolfrog,

Don't forget about our discussion regarding turning this article into a series of articles, in which the dyslexia article becomes the top level, and sections are written in "summary style" with links to separate articles that provide the greater detail. See Wikipedia:Summary Style.

Maybe it's time to begin to break out some parts of the article into separate, subordinate articles.

Best

smoran 23:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree -- I am also concerned that the "dyslexia" article has parts that veer off into discussions of auditory processing disorder (APD) & visual processing issues--these should have their own topics. I think it is important to reference them here, but the discussion should take place in appropriate topics--otherwise,this topic stops being about "dyslexia". Armarshall 04:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Arm

there is a need to look at the underlying causes of dyslexia such as APD and ther corresponding visual processing disorder because that is what dyslexia s mainly all about. but there as yoiu say there is already a APD article in the wiki system so not too much detail is required onb that topic, but there is not anyt corespondinhg article on Visual processing Disorder and many of thre other issues that can cause the dyslexic symptoms and this could be an area of further articles to be linked inoito ther wider dysexia article.

I have deleted the sib types of dyslkewxia asd that was a complete nonsense and i have never come accross those terms before it would appear to be some one invention in the USA a bit like the International Dyslexia Association.

best wishes

dolfrog 12:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If your thinking of turning this into a series would it be worth starting a Wikiproject to co-ordinate it? Having worked in other projects it is simpler to do it now rather than go through finding articles to add afterwards. --Nate1481(^talk/_contribs) 09:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

^ "A Framework for Understanding Dyslexia". What is Dyslexia?. Department for Education and Skills (UK).
^ "A Framework for Understanding Dyslexia". What do theorists agree on?. Department for Education and Skills (UK).
^ Overy, K (2000). "Dyslexia, Temporal Processing and Music; The potential of music as an early learning aid for dyslexic children". Psychology of Music. 28 (2): 218–229.
^ Miles,Tim: Music and Dyslexia: Opening New Doors, Whirr Publishers, London UK 2001

[1] "A Framework for Understanding Dyslexia". What is Dyslexia?. Department for Education and Skills (UK).

[2] "A Framework for Understanding Dyslexia". What do theorists agree on?. Department for Education and Skills (UK).

[3] Overy, K (2000). "Dyslexia, Temporal Processing and Music; The potential of music as an early learning aid for dyslexic children". Psychology of Music. 28 (2): 218–229.

[4] Miles,Tim: Music and Dyslexia: Opening New Doors, Whirr Publishers, London UK 2001

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]