Good curricula for dyslexia

[PeterPan]

And to whomever said ther child couldn't remember 'am' after decoding it multiple times in the same sitting, that was my daughter about a year ago. She's progressed, but it's SLOW!

Bingo, and that's what I'm saying you bust through with Barton.

[baxterclan7]

My mom had a Davis trained tutor work with my dyslexic sister years ago, after she had learned to get by in reading but still struggled in school and life (she wasn't diagnosed til junior high). I see the value in what they do, and I may incorporate some of those methods, but with my limited knowledge, I think other methods are more comprehensive of all of the needs. My mom felt like it helped my sister immensely, and I think it did. She is still a slow reader and college work is difficult for her, though, but that may be par for the course for a dyslexic.

[PeterPan]

My understanding (just from watching videos online) is Davis is more about the spatial problems, right?  Right now they're breaking about reading disorder and visual problems, so when a person gets a reading disorder label it's considered a phonological processing problem, meaning the way they handle sounds (ability to hear, break apart, blend together) is the problem.  The question of the visual is entirely separate.  

 

With my ds, because he clearly had issues with spatial, left/right, orientation, etc. (like he was doing lego technic kits meant for 10 yos at age 5 but flipping them in his mind and needed help to notice and get things flipped back), I decided to use alphabet magnets instead of the Barton tiles.  http://www.lakeshorelearning.com/product/productDet.jsp?productItemID=1%2C689%2C949%2C371%2C896%2C957&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=1408474395181113&bmUID=1420724473589 is the set I'm using.  I picked it up at a sale for $15 and I bless the feet of whoever sold it to me!!  It has enough letters that we can build every single phonogram (including the multi-letter phonograms) every single day and match them to LIPS faces.  I dump the letters out, so every day he touches them and has to wrangle with that spatial of them being flipped, upside down, backwards, whatever.  As he builds words, again he has to notice.  It's not like a pre-printed tile where it's just already done for him.  

 

So that's my homage to the issues.  The main thing with dyslexia is to focus on the phonological processing, which is what Barton does.  It's ok to work on both phonological processing and visual processing, absolutely.  If you want to take her to a developmental optometrist and get her visual processing checked, that's cool too.  My dd needed VT (vision therapy).  She's not dyslexic but she had all kinds of developmental vision problems that were affecting her reading and spelling.  She gets inattention symptoms when her vision is strained.  So I'm all for getting vision checked.  You go to www.covd.org to find a developmental optometrist.  They vary with cost and how the practice works.  I usually suggest people start with just a normal eye exam with the doc but ask them to *screen* for the developmental stuff.  They have a full developmental vision exam that is usually 2-3 hours and several hundred dollars.  The regular exam (you know, the annual visit) is only $60 in our area and at least lets you know if the long eval is warranted and if you like the doc.  So that's what I usually suggest.  I take myself and my two kids to the developmental optometrist now.  Ironically, my dyslexic ds has no developmental vision problems (convergence, focusing, depth perception, etc.).  He has astigmatism and wears glasses for close-up work.  He has visual memory issues but the glasses seem to help with that.  

 

See to me this is why evals are good, because you can proceed assuming it's one thing and it's actually another.  Evals let you target what you're doing.  So cool, if you think vision is part of her mix, get it checked, work on it.  But dyslexia is the phonological processing.  That's what OG will work on, and the easiest way to implement OG at home is Barton. (not meant as a statement to exclude other programs as useful but just saying when you specifically want OG targeted to dyslexics, not a more streamlined or faster version meant for a more NT market)

[merry gardens]

My mom had a Davis trained tutor work with my dyslexic sister years ago, after she had learned to get by in reading but still struggled in school and life (she wasn't diagnosed til junior high). I see the value in what they do, and I may incorporate some of those methods, but with my limited knowledge, I think other methods are more comprehensive of all of the needs. My mom felt like it helped my sister immensely, and I think it did. She is still a slow reader and college work is difficult for her, though, but that may be par for the course for a dyslexic.

 

I tried Davis techniques too. His book was the first one I read about dyslexia, and then one of the first people I called when I suspected dyslexia was a Davis tutor.  He was nice, but he told me my son was too young--which in retrospect saved me a great deal of money by not using his tutoring services. I tried some of those Davis techniques on our own, so my son built the alphabet in clay over and over again repeatedly. We made little clay sculptures of common words. My son's reading didn't really improve, but he did learn how to form the letters of the alphabet.  I tried that, along with SWR and other things before turning to Barton and LiPS.

 

Davis has an interesting approach that may work for some--if they have a strong enough visual skills. His methods try to bypass the phonological problems found in many dyslexics by teaching words by sight. Building letters, words and images with clay is multi-sensory and can be useful technique for some. Davis methods rely heavily on visual strengths, (which many dyslexics are gifted in, hence the name of his book). It does not remediate the weaknesses necessary to learn phonics. He does advocates making sure the student has an understanding of the meaning of common words, which is a good thing for some struggling readers that some methods miss. Somewhere in the book Davis says that he was labeled autistic as a child, which he equated with an extreme form of dyslexia.

 

If you read his book, take what he says with a proverbial grain of salt. He developed his method based on his own personal experience of what worked for him--and he had strong visual-spatial* skills. (* Spell check kept trying to make that say "special"-since I misspelled spatial by using a "c" . Those types of visual skills are special skills.) Not every dyslexic person has strong visual skills, however, by the current definitions of dyslexia, people with dyslexia have shortcomings in their ability to hear sounds in words.  Davis methods doesn't correct that; it simply tries to work around it by relying on memorizing words and connecting those words to some picture in the head. Davis methods also tries to assure the child has an understanding of what the words mean. 

 

I go back and fourth on what I think of Davis' methods.  It didn't really help my son much, but people with a strong visual memory may get by with simply memorizing lots and lots of words.  That's basically the notion behind teaching words by sight that many schools used for decades, but Davis at least throws in some multi-sensory techniques and a few other things with teaching words by sight. Gifted people may have the ability to memorize tens of thousands of words, and recognizing words by sight is needed for fluency. With all that said, what I found most helpful from Davis is his book title, "The Gift of Dyslexia". Teaching methods aside, he presents a viewpoint that some of us need to hear--that underneath these challenges, there may lie some real gifts and talents.

[PeterPan]

Somewhere in the book Davis says that he was labeled autistic as a child, which he equated with an extreme form of dyslexia.

 

Whoa, so even though they're finding with MRIs that the brain processes of autism and dyslexia are different (the fact that some kids get diagnosed with both notwithstanding), he just happily lumps to himself a dyslexia label EVEN THOUGH HE WAS DIAGNOSED WITH AUTISM???

 

Thunk.

 

It's well-known kids with ASD can have really off the wall spatial and VSL issues.  Actually it's common across all the alphabet soup of labels.  I know someone with an ASD label who has poor phonological awareness to the point where the parent assumed a dyslexia label would also apply.  The dc struggles with a foreign language like a dyslexic would, though not to the same degree.  But in NO psych evals has that dc EVER been diagnosed with a reading disorder.  Because when push comes to shove it's not the same.  My kid struggles with foreign language and word retrieval, but again no reading disorder label.  And I struggled with that because clearly something is glitchy even if the DSM doesn't want to admit it and doesn't have a word for it.

 

But that doesn't mean that glitchiness is the same as the glitches my ds has.  Double thunk, head thunk, thwap.  

 

So whatever, it's our plight that the DSM attempts to split apart things that do overlap and that they don't really have explanations for all that.  But for Davis to claim for himself a dyslexia label if his wasn't is just a little disingenuine, oy.

[merry gardens]

Okay, I found the book and re-read what Davis wrote about autism and dyslexia. 

Page 66 "As a child, I had a problem called autism.  It is like super-dyslexia, only with more severe disorientation triggered by auditory stimuli.  At the age of twelve, I still hadn't learned the alphabet. Even the "Alphabet Song" couldn't get me past the letter G...." He goes on to write about how he made models of things from clay in his backyard and how he one day started making letters out of clay. That's how he learned the alphabet. He says later on page 110 that until age 13 he was considered retarded and that he would be classified as autistic today.

 

It stood out to me how he compared dyslexia with autism, but way back when he was a child both those labels were defined differently than they are today. The word itself, "dyslexia" translated means "difficulty reading" (dys=difficulty + lexia=reading) and some applied that word to anyone having difficulty reading. He claims to have had difficulty learning to reading, but there was something more going on with him too, which he acknowledges.  He reminds me of people I know with Asperger's, which is yet another diagnosis/label that's changed. Other far more reputable sources have mentioned that autism and dyslexia can run together in families.

 

For whatever it's worth, he tries to help people learn to read based off what he found helped him. Some of his ideas are definitely odd, and his theories certainly don't match up to the current understanding of dyslexia and various other learning disorders. His background in in engineering, not education, psychology or medicine. It's been a long time since I read that book and tried his methods, and it didn't particularly help my son. In fact, it delayed my son the help he needed, but his book wasn't the only thing that delayed getting the proper help.  We'd seen a speech therapist at our school district for evaluation, and she missed what was going on too. I only mentioned that I tried the Davis methods after the original poster mention how her sister had used Davis methods. I'm glad that I didn't spend more than some time, the cost of a book and the cost of some clay on it.

[PeterPan]

Merry, that's very interesting!! It would be interesting to see how Davis would get labeled now. 

 

How amazing that he was able to come out and emerge and learn to read and do all these things!!  I think if people understood there was more going on in his situation than just dyslexia they might be more discriminating to see if his comments actually apply to *their* situation.  I'm sure his advice would be really good for a person whose situation is similar.  

[Crimson Wife]

There is a high co-morbidity rate of dyslexia for those with ASD, but it is false to call autism "super-dyslexia". They are different conditions with different symptoms. Plenty of people with ASD are strong readers, even if they may struggle with understanding some of the more figurative language and things implied but not outright stated by an author.

 

My child with ASD is at risk for dyslexia and has some "red flags" like struggling with distinguishing certain phonemes. It would not surprise me if she wound up with a co-morbid diagnosis, but it would be in addition to the autism, not a result of it.

[Pen]

Currently, I believe that brain scans have tended to show some patterns that are opposite for "dyslexia" and "autism."   

 

I tend to think that programs like Davis and Edmark would be last ditch ... if phonics based programs properly developed according to best current research and practices for dyslexia type reading problems don't work.    But I do think that it is helpful for people who are struggling or have struggling children to realize that there are many options, and if the first ones tried do not work that other approaches may. And I think Davis's personal story with reading struggle and overcoming it can be reassuring.

[Crimson Wife]

I've heard the claim made before that ASD and dyslexia are "opposite" but have yet to see any research to back that assertion up and it goes against stats I've seen in respected sources of a high co-morbidity of the two. So if you've got any links, I would be very interested in seeing them.

[PeterPan]

I've heard the claim made before that ASD and dyslexia are "opposite" but have yet to see any research to back that assertion up and it goes against stats I've seen in respected sources of a high co-morbidity of the two. So if you've got any links, I would be very interested in seeing them.

We had talked about the research the Eides posted, but it was a rather small pool and definitely seems to disagree with what you see happening with people online.  On a practical level I think it's a muddle to try to make as b&w a statement as their initial blog post (that they've backpedaled on) seemed to imply.  With 12 (or more?) subtypes of ASD being discussed by researchers, there's just no way to say definitively that there's no way you can have ASD and dyslexia co-morbid.

 

My point in bringing it up was actually more subtle.  You can have ASD with developmental delays, visual/spatial issues, phonological issues, and STILL not get the reading disorder label.  Not all NLVD gets a dyslexia label either, even though some people like to use the terms as if they're interchangeable.  So what if Davis was exceptionally delayed, very VSL, and when it all gelled he was actually hyperlexic compared to his own speech or language acquisition?  I don't know enough of his story.  I'm just saying it's reasonable to question that, rather than just having some man diagnosed what 40 years ago?? say what he thinks he ought to have been diagnosed with, when the standards have changed, the understanding has changed.

 

I think it's best to use his ideas if your situation (and not just the labels) most closely matches.  To me that's a reasonable explanation for why it doesn't seem to make a lick spit of difference for some dyslexics and yet for a narrow subset actually seems really effective.  And I think it's really disingenuine for them to market Davis as therapy methodology for dyslexia if that wasn't precisely or even DOMINANTLY the mix the guy was dealing with.  But it seems honesty seldom matters in marketing.

[Pen]

I've heard the claim made before that ASD and dyslexia are "opposite" but have yet to see any research to back that assertion up and it goes against stats I've seen in respected sources of a high co-morbidity of the two. So if you've got any links, I would be very interested in seeing them.

 

 

No links, sorry. Might have been somewhere in Overcoming Dyslexia or The Dyslexic Advantage. Might have been in Brain in the News. Or elsewhere, but those are most likely in my recollection.  Also I was recently looking at research out of Univ. of Washington on dyslexia...it could also be from that.

 

Vaguely my recollection was that in autism something or others in brain are spaced very close together, while the same somethings in dyslexia are far apart, and or that some areas that light up a lot on functional MRIs are opposite in the two. And my memory could be totally off as to any of these even vague recollections as to the specifics of what was opposite.

 

ETA I do think the point about finding a program where people helped by it are similar to ones own dc = important.

[Timberly]

.

[PeterPan]

DS10 can answer MUS problems using blocks or when I scribe, but he can't successfully do the workbooks on his own. He's covered 3 books in 4 months. Conceptional reasoning is solid, solo pencil to paper is not good at all..

And does he have a dysgraphia or SLD-writing label?  I'm trying to figure out what's ahead for ds and what this SLD-writing will mean. I agree, it's kind of shocking what happens when you remove the barriers and assumptions about how things have to be done.

[Heathermomster]

I've heard the claim made before that ASD and dyslexia are "opposite" but have yet to see any research to back that assertion up and it goes against stats I've seen in respected sources of a high co-morbidity of the two. So if you've got any links, I would be very interested in seeing them.

The Eides discussed this in the Dyslexic Advantage.  As I recall and it has been over 2.5 years since I read this, they were looking at brain scans and noted a difference in spacing between the mini-columns in the brain.  The spacing of these mini-columns was farthest apart with dyslexics and closest with ASD.  The Eides noted a structural difference.  Clear as mud, right?   I would describe the structural differences as two bookends containing two very diverse learning styles.  ETA:  One very concrete thinker as opposed to one that easily makes abstractions.

 

Apparently, this spacing helps individuals make connections between disparate activities and learning.  Hence, the big picture thinking and dicussion that you see with so many gifted dyslexics.  The information was included in the DA to explain a dyslexic mindstrength and not really an upclose examination of ASD.  See the book DA.

 

ETA:  In my very limited pool of observation, I have always associated hyperlexia with ASD.  The inferences and comprehension seemed to be more problematic than learning to decode and encode, and there seems to be an unusually high emphasis on visual spelling and sight word reading.  There is so much diversity within a label though.  It would be nice if we could just wave a wand and have instant knowledge and understanding.

[Timberly]

.

[Crimson Wife]

 

ETA:  In my very limited pool of observation, I have always associated hyperlexia with ASD.

 

Hyperlexia is common with Asperger's but those with "classic" autism frequently have expressive-receptive language delay as a symptom. I have to wonder if the Eides tend to see more patients with Asperger's than "classic" autism due to their reputation. That might explain why their data set differs from other researchers.

[Heathermomster]

Hyperlexia is common with Asperger's but those with "classic" autism frequently have expressive-receptive language delay as a symptom. I have to wonder if the Eides tend to see more patients with Asperger's than "classic" autism due to their reputation. That might explain why their data set differs from other researchers.

If I can find my copy of DA, I'll look up the info. I think the mention of the mini-columns was based upon data observed by another researcher.

 

As to learning and reading, I spoke with a woman that is O-G certified and tutors Wilson. She's a nurse by trade but adopted a child from Thailand, who was diagnosed dyslexic. She knows many Wilson tutors in the area and has been involved with the local dyslexia school. I feel she is knowledgeable enough. Anyhoo..

 

I asked her about using Wilson with a child with ASD/Autism. She told me that direct and explicit multisensory instruction applies to ALL struggling learners. An experienced tutor adapts to the student. If they respond more to visual instruction, give them visual. I am not certain that in the end run, spacing of mini-columns really matters. To me at least, it is more of an interesting difference that may explain the VSL or high environmental sensitivities that we see in the ASD/Austic community. I just don't know.

[Lecka]

I think when the Eides are contrasting dyslexia and autism, they are doing it only to make a certain point.  

 

I think they make their point.

 

I do not think that means that someone can not have difficulty in learning to decode and autism.  

 

In their book -- they are really not even making points about the reading difficulty part of dyslexia, they are talking about other aspects of dyslexia.  

 

I think it works out, that they make their point of contrasting dyslexia and autism ----- but I do not think that is the same thing as saying, that autism and a reading disorder cannot be co-morbid or that it never happens.  

 

The Eides also have their own usage of the word dyslexia, and as they use the word, I do think it does contrast with autism.  I think they have valid points.  But just that it is really over-simplified to take that to mean that someone with autism cannot have the kind of problems with phonemic awareness that are meant by the use of the word "dyslexia" when other people are using the word "dyslexia."  

[Guest2]

We also tried the Davis techniques , but moved on to Barton.

My daughter can picture things in 3D, rotate them and even visualize what they look like from a different vantage point than hers. Davis techniques helped me understand that and give her cues to focus from just the one vantage point . It helped somewhat. The letters still "moved" and words still " shift and turn diagonally ,ect" for her. She can read now, even with the disorientation at times. We didn't have as much success with the clay.

[geodob]

The Eides have misunderstood this research into Mini-columnars, which was done back in 2002.

It was a badly designed study, as it didn't include a Neurotypical control group.

As the NT control group, would also show greater Mini-columnar spacing.  

 

But this reduced spacing has been important in understanding Autism?

When we learn something new, inside the brain cell, These Mini-columnars are formed.

Which are made from between 14 and 120 Neurons, and form a column about 0.001 mm wide.

About half the width, of the finest wool fiber.

 

You have probably heard of Brain Synapses?  Which is what connects brain cells together.

Well the Mini-columnars are what the Synapses attach to, in each brain cell.

A bit like an 'electricity street pole'.

 

But their are another type of Cells in the brain, called Microglia ?

Which roam around the Brain Cells.

They play a critical role, as they identify unused Mini-columnars, and take them apart.

Some of the 'material' which are chemicals, are reused. But an Enzyme that also resides in the brain cells.

Identifies what is 'rubbish', and removes it and sends it away in the blood stream.

 

But a crucial thing that has been identified in Autism?

Is that the Microglia aren't taking apart and removing the unused Mini-columnars.

Which is why their is reduced spacing between the Mini-columnars in Autistic brain cells.

 

This removal of redundant Mini-columnars, is what is referred to as the 'Pruning process in the brain'.

Which is a life-long process, and critical for the efficient operation of the brain, and thinking.

 

So that what this study showed in relation to Dyslexia?

Is that Dyslexics have greater spacing between their Mini-columnars.

So that the Dyslexic brain is normal in this regard.

 

A properly designed study, would have had a Neuro-Typical group, to identify an 'average spacing' in the human brain.

This could then be used as a valid comparison, to any 'type' of Learning Disorder'.

But to just compare Autism and Dyslexia, is Bad Research.

Where a major problem with Bad Research, is that it hangs around and misinforms.

It raises a question about the Eides, that they would cite this research.

[Heathermomster]

Thank-you for explaining.

Geoff, did you read the book DA, or are you making assertions about the Eides' work based upon what I stated? If you read their work and hold an opinion, well that is great. However, if you are disagreeing with the Eide's based upon something I wrote, please don't. I provided a brief paraphrase based upon my perceptions from a book read over 2.5 years ago. I may have totally ruined the point they were attempting to make.

[PeterPan]

Geoff, that's interesting!  Heather, I think the Eides posted that info on their blog or something too.  It's floating around online.  He might have just read the original study results and knows directly from that how the study was done.

 

So what are they thinking is the reason for the low-functioning microglia?  Or there's not even enough microglia?  Or they're more specifically low on the enzyme?  Or they don't know yet?  

 

And see what bugged me is to generalize about autism when they're seeing 12 subtypes.  So are they saying they tested a huge swath of ASD people and are saying ALL the ASD people across ALL the subtypes present with this brain issue?  

 

And what are the functional consequences of it?  And how would one reasonably extrapolate whether someone is the dyslexic with the widely-spaced mini-columns or the dyslexic with the ASD-profile brain?  

 

And while we're at it (and just because we're here), how does this affect processing speed?  See I always assumed the spacing of the mini columns would affect not just learning but processing speeds. What biochemically causes the processing speed issues we see in our kids?  See I don't really have a precise answer for why my dd has a low processing speed and gets a label and my ds has a very different processing speed and also gets that label.

[Crimson Wife]

 

The Eides also have their own usage of the word dyslexia, and as they use the word, I do think it does contrast with autism.  I think they have valid points.  But just that it is really over-simplified to take that to mean that someone with autism cannot have the kind of problems with phonemic awareness that are meant by the use of the word "dyslexia" when other people are using the word "dyslexia."  

 

I haven't yet read the DA book, but this sounds like an important caveat, and one that is often missing when people reference their work. If the Eides are using the term "dyslexia" in a different way than the typical understanding of the term, then it is important to make that distinction explicit. Especially when making broad generalizations such as "autism and dyslexia are 'opposite'".

 

From everything I've read, it is my personal opinion that "autism" and "dyslexia" are both catch-all diagnoses that each lumps together a whole bunch of underlying neurobiological issues. That is why often an intervention/treatment/therapy that helps one subset of patients is useless for other subsets.

[OneStepAtATime]

 

From everything I've read, it is my personal opinion that "autism" and "dyslexia" are both catch-all diagnoses that each lumps together a whole bunch of underlying neurobiological issues. That is why often an intervention/treatment/therapy that helps one subset of patients is useless for other subsets.

Yes. :)

[Heathermomster]

Here's the citation used in the DA:

 

Autism and dyslexia: A spectrum of cognitive styles as defined by minicolumnar morphometry  (Citations: 5) 

Emily L. Williams, Manuel F. Casanova

[Pen]

Geodob,

 

What do you make of this? It does not have large sample size but does seem to have controls.

 

 

http://libra.msra.cn/Publication/38966787/reduced-brain-size-and-gyrification-in-the-brain

 

from the abstract (bold added to highlight the controls):

 

Reduced Brain Size and Gyrification in the Brains of Dyslexic Patients  (Citations: 32) 

Manuel F. Casanova, Julio Araque, Jay Giedd, Judith M. Rumsey

Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that affects the way in which a person acquires reading skills. The pathologic substrate of the condition has been debated in the literature. Conclusions from postmortem studies remain controversial because series have been based on few and often ill-characterized cases. The present article expands on one of the reported neuropathologic findings in dyslexia, that is, wider minicolumns. Measurements were made of magnetic resonance images in a series of 16 dyslexic and 14 age- and sex-matched controls. Dyslexic patients had significantly smaller total cerebral volume (P = .014) and reduced gyrification index (P = .021). No changes were noted in cortical thickness, the ratio of gray to white matter, or the cross-sectional areas of the corpus callosum and medulla oblongata. The findings, although not conclusive, are in keeping with a minicolumnar defect in dyslexia. The decreased gyrification and preserved cortical thickness can alter the information processing capacity of the brain by providing a greater degree of cortical integration at the expense of a slower response time. The article also emphasizes the contrast between findings in dyslexia and in autism. (J Child Neurol 2004;19:275-281).

 

 

Journal: Journal of Child Neurology - JCN , vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 275-281, 2004

 

DOI: 10.1177/088307380401900407

 

 

------------------

also possibly of interest:

 

 

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02284715  Neuropsychological divergence of high-level autism and severe dyslexia - Springer

 

http://libra.msra.cn/Publication/48039405/corpus-callosum-shape-analysis-with-application-to-dyslexia

 

 

and supposed to be related, but I cannot see them at all:

 

http://cogprints.org/4524/1/TINS04.pdf

 

and

 

http://www.sci.utah.edu/~gerig/ITED08-Presentations/NohaElZehiryMICCAI_EarlyBrain.pdf

 

[Pen]

We also tried the Davis techniques , but moved on to Barton.

My daughter can picture things in 3D, rotate them and even visualize what they look like from a different vantage point than hers. Davis techniques helped me understand that and give her cues to focus from just the one vantage point . It helped somewhat. The letters still "moved" and words still " shift and turn diagonally ,ect" for her. She can read now, even with the disorientation at times. We didn't have as much success with the clay.

 

 

This is interesting to me in that it is so different sounding than what seemed to be the trouble for my ds. He was not experiencing moving letters or shifting and turning words, so far as I can determine.  Order, left versus right, sequencing etc. are all hard for him, but he does not, so far as can be determined, actually see things upside down and backwards as was thought to be a dyslexia problem at one time.

 

I do have a relative who apparently does see things in different orientation than most people do.

 

It seems like again, it might be a reason to consider very carefully what sort of exact trouble a particular program is good at remedying, rather than just to think about a term like "dyslexia," since the term can be used to cover a range of problems.

[Lecka]

It maybe I am not looking at this the right way, but ----- I think all these things are contrasting dyslexia and autism *in regards to mini-columns* and talking about how there are differences between the two that they think are related to *the mini-columns.*

 

I have read about this study wrt both dyslexia and autism -- but I do not know enough about it, except to just repeat what I have read about it.

 

For autism -- they say, "oh, the mini-columns may explain why some people have been able to concentrate so hard on one thing and get into one thing so deeply."  Then -- they mention a Noble prize-winning scientist and say how he was able to get so deep into chemistry (iirc).   

 

Then for dyslexia -- they say, "oh, this explains why they make such connections between different things."  And talk about how good it is. 

 

But I do not see this related to phonemic awareness or auditory processing or anything like that.  And -- that is fine. 

 

I just do not take it, at this point in time, to mean "oh, you can't have a problem with phonemic awareness and learning to decode, if you have autism," and that is how it comes across to me at times when people are saying " you can't have dyslexia and autism." 

 

It makes sense to me -- you either have short mini-columns or long mini-columns.  I guess they are one length throughout the brain -- I don't even know. 

 

But this is all just contrasting the length of mini-columns and making some extrapolations from that. 

 

I don't think it is that big of a deal in practical terms like thinking maybe someone needs direct instruction in reading or needs instruction in phonemic awareness or needs sequenced, phonetic reading instruction.

 

I do think it matters in the more general ways that are also important. 

[Lecka]

It maybe I am not looking at this the right way, but ----- I think all these things are contrasting dyslexia and autism *in regards to mini-columns* and talking about how there are differences between the two that they think are related to *the mini-columns.*

 

I have read about this study wrt both dyslexia and autism -- but I do not know enough about it, except to just repeat what I have read about it.

 

For autism -- they say, "oh, the mini-columns may explain why some people have been able to concentrate so hard on one thing and get into one thing so deeply."  Then -- they mention a Noble prize-winning scientist and say how he was able to get so deep into chemistry (iirc).   

 

Then for dyslexia -- they say, "oh, this explains why they make such connections between different things."  And talk about how good it is. 

 

But I do not see this related to phonemic awareness or auditory processing or anything like that.  And -- that is fine. 

 

I just do not take it, at this point in time, to mean "oh, you can't have a problem with phonemic awareness and learning to decode, if you have autism," and that is how it comes across to me at times when people are saying " you can't have dyslexia and autism." 

 

It makes sense to me -- you either have short mini-columns or long mini-columns.  I guess they are one length throughout the brain -- I don't even know. 

 

But this is all just contrasting the length of mini-columns and making some extrapolations from that. 

 

I don't think it is that big of a deal in practical terms like thinking maybe someone needs direct instruction in reading or needs instruction in phonemic awareness or needs sequenced, phonetic reading instruction.

 

I do think it matters in the more general ways that are also important. 

[Lecka]

I can't link, but for anyone curious, an article I read about mini-columns was by Temple Grandin and is called "Brain Cortex Structure Similar in Brilliant Scientists and Autism" and it is the 3rd hit when googling "Temple Grandin mini-columns." 

 

She is from the autism side, and so she talks about the advantages, but also disadvantages, of the short mini-columns. 

 

In DA they just discuss how good long mini-columns are, and it can come across to me as "not like those horrible short mini-columns those people with autism have."  But I am aware I am oversensitive on this!  Temple Grandin does not mention the implications for longer mini-columns and dyslexia, either, and I don't hold it against her. 

 

I have read about it somewhere else wrt autism but I do not know really where.  I am not sure.  I have read The Autistic Brain by Temple Grandin, so that seems like it may be it. 

 

But still -- I do not see that any of this is linked to auditory processing or phonemic awareness.  I do not see how it is related to looking for an appropriate reading program for reading remediation.  But -- there is more to life than reading remediation, too.  I just don't think it makes sense to take this and then go "well, for autism you would not see the phonemic awareness problems found in dyslexia" b/c I do not think that is the same thing. I don't think that is what this study addressed, as far as I know. 

[Pen]

Lecka, Maybe this would be of interest? http://www.amazon.com/Neurodiversity-Discovering-Extraordinary-Dyslexia-Differences/dp/0738213543  Looking at positives for multiple different non NT situations? (I've not read it.)

 

In regard to possible relationship to reading,

 

http://www.wired.com/2011/09/dyslexic-advantage/

 

 

F. Eide: "Dyslexic brains are organized in a way that maximizes strength in making big picture connections at the expense of weaknesses in processing fine details."

 

 

I think the idea would be that someone with dyslexia will have trouble with the decoding, but, if all that is going on is dyslexia, not with then connecting the words once decoding to the wider meanings.  Someone with autism, if that is all that is going on, is likely to be better at decoding, but have a harder time connecting up the decoded words to their wider meanings.  This does fit with people I have known who have dyslexia versus ASD.  But probably nothing stops someone with ASD from also having trouble with decoding and phonemic issues, but it could be that in that case it is an in addition to ASD, not because of ASD, situation.  Or otoh, someone with dyslexia could have trouble with comprehending as well as decoding, but to me that too is likely to be an in addition to dyslexia sort of problem.   

 

At least from what I've seen so far. Very limited experience.

 

[geodob]

This is important research, that is worth taking the time to understand.

 

I would add a quote from their abstract on Autism and Dyslexia:

" In autism, a model of local hyperconnectivity and long-range hypoconnectivity explains many of the behavioral and cognitive traits present in the condition, while the inverse arrangement of local hypoconnectivity and long-range hyperconnectivity in dyslexia sheds light on that condition as well."

 

Then another study from the same team, on Autism and ADHD:

"  In autism, a model of local hyperconnectivity and long-range hypoconnectivity explains many of the behavioral and cognitive deficits present in the condition, whereas the inverse arrangement of local hypoconnectivity and long-range hyperconnectivity in ADHD explains some deficits typical for this disorder."

 

Firstly, they are talking about an 'inverse arrangement'.

But what is this inverse arangement?

 

The key terms are: 'local hypoconnectivity and long-range hyperconnectivity'.

 

What 'Local' refers to, is any specific brain region.

 

While 'Long Range' refers to connections between brain regions.

 

Then we have 'hypoconnectivity', which is low connectivity.

As well as 'hyperconnectivity', which is over connectivity.

 

So to put it simply?

With Autism, their is an 'over connectivity' within brain regions.  (some brain regions)

But a 'low connectivity' between brain regions.

 

Then with Dyslexia, their is the inverse.

With 'over connectivity' between brain regions.

But a 'low connectivity', within brain regions (some brain regions)

 

With Dyslexia and difficulties with 'phonemic awareness', occurring within a local brain region.

While with Autism, they have a strong local brain region to deal with 'phonemic awareness'.

The difficulty is with 'long range connections', to other brain regions.

Which are what give words their meanings and contexts.

 

Though with this low hypoconnectivity?

Most often this only occurs in certain brain regions.

Which is the difference between Dyslexia and Dyscalculia.

 

But coming back to Microglia?

The brain is constantly forming local and long range connections in the brain.

Which is what brain's White Matter is.

But it doesn't simply keep adding new connections?

The role of Microglia in each brain region?

Is to identify outdated connections.

Then to send enzymes in to take the connections apart and remove them.

 

Which basically replaces 'old learning', with 'new learning'.

As well as makes space inside the brain cells, for new connections to be formed.

 

But dysfunction can occur with Microglia, with its ability to identify what connections to remove?

So for example with Autism?

They are ignoring Local connections, and with a focus on Long-Range connections?

Prevent connections between different brain regions be formed.

[Lecka]

Geodob, I just do not think there is evidence right now to say "while with autism, they have to a strong local brain region to deal with phonemic awareness." 

 

How does the study say that the parts of the brain dealing with phonemic awareness are never effected? 

 

I think talking about that, and talking about associating words with their meanings, are two different things.

 

I agree --- it totally seems to fit, that associating words with their meanings is a logical conclusion.

 

I just don't see "so of course phonemic awareness is fine" as a logical conclusion. 

 

I agree with what Pen said -- maybe someone with autism also has a problem with reading/decoding (as opposed to comprehension -- which is much more expected with autism), but it is maybe a separate thing from the ASD in some way. 

 

Especially when auditory processing can be difficult with autism.  Isn't auditory processing going to make phonemic awareness more difficult, a lot of the time?  And ----- even if it is not the exact same mechanism of "difficulty with phonemic awareness" seen with other people, maybe it doesn't matter.  If you cannot match up sounds you hear to letters you see, then that is a problem, however it is happening. 

 

My main reason to be hung up on this issue, is really, just not wanting people to rule out certain reading approaches or avenues for reading remediation, b/c they might hear "oh, that is for dyslexia, and ASD and dyslexia are opposites, so you might want to look elsewhere."  I also don't want to have people told "ASD and dyslexia are opposites, so no need to worry about phonemic awareness with ASD, that is not a problem you would ever find with ASD."  I don't think those are good conclusions.

 

Even though I think the broader conclusions make sense and would be helpful to people in trying to understand things or make educational decisions.   

[LaughingCat]

The way I read what geodub is saying - is that the regions that have more connections (for autism) are not set - it varies from person to person.  So it could be the region responsible for phonemic awareness has more connections, thus causing hyperlexia - but it also could be that region does not have more connections  (maybe even not enough connections - assuming that is actually the cause of dyslexia), thus allowing for a child that could have autism and phonemic awareness issues.

 

 

 

 

[Heathermomster]

This is important research, that is worth taking the time to understand.

 

I would add a quote from their abstract on Autism and Dyslexia:

" In autism, a model of local hyperconnectivity and long-range hypoconnectivity explains many of the behavioral and cognitive traits present in the condition, while the inverse arrangement of local hypoconnectivity and long-range hyperconnectivity in dyslexia sheds light on that condition as well."

 

Then another study from the same team, on Autism and ADHD:

"  In autism, a model of local hyperconnectivity and long-range hypoconnectivity explains many of the behavioral and cognitive deficits present in the condition, whereas the inverse arrangement of local hypoconnectivity and long-range hyperconnectivity in ADHD explains some deficits typical for this disorder."

 

Firstly, they are talking about an 'inverse arrangement'.

But what is this inverse arangement?

 

The key terms are: 'local hypoconnectivity and long-range hyperconnectivity'.

 

What 'Local' refers to, is any specific brain region.

 

While 'Long Range' refers to connections between brain regions.

 

Then we have 'hypoconnectivity', which is low connectivity.

As well as 'hyperconnectivity', which is over connectivity.

 

So to put it simply?

With Autism, their is an 'over connectivity' within brain regions.  (some brain regions)

But a 'low connectivity' between brain regions.

 

Then with Dyslexia, their is the inverse.

With 'over connectivity' between brain regions.

But a 'low connectivity', within brain regions (some brain regions)

 

With Dyslexia and difficulties with 'phonemic awareness', occurring within a local brain region.

While with Autism, they have a strong local brain region to deal with 'phonemic awareness'.

The difficulty is with 'long range connections', to other brain regions.

Which are what give words their meanings and contexts.

 

Though with this low hypoconnectivity?

Most often this only occurs in certain brain regions.

Which is the difference between Dyslexia and Dyscalculia.

 

But coming back to Microglia?

The brain is constantly forming local and long range connections in the brain.

Which is what brain's White Matter is.

But it doesn't simply keep adding new connections?

The role of Microglia in each brain region?

Is to identify outdated connections.

Then to send enzymes in to take the connections apart and remove them.

 

Which basically replaces 'old learning', with 'new learning'.

As well as makes space inside the brain cells, for new connections to be formed.

 

But dysfunction can occur with Microglia, with its ability to identify what connections to remove?

So for example with Autism?

They are ignoring Local connections, and with a focus on Long-Range connections?

Prevent connections between different brain regions be formed.

So for the ASD/Autistic individual, you are stating that a dysfunction with the Microglia prevents the appropriate pruning necessary for the development of the longer range connections? The old columns linger and there is no space for new ones to grow?

 

But the purpose of the book Dyslexic Advantage was to explain mind strengths of a dyslexic.  The book wasn't about why there is a dysfunction with Microglia shown with ASD/Autistic patients.  

 

I feel like you have a beef with the Eides' and I don't understand, especially when their stated purpose is to demonstrate strengths and encourage those with dyslexia.  Have they been fundamentally wrong about dyslexia and mind strengths?

 

Has any new and more acceptable research been conducted to prove the mini column distance is indeed larger with the dyslexic population?   Without explaining the mechanism for why, it seems their observation that closer mini-column spacing is true for the ASD/Autistic community. 

[Heathermomster]

Lecka, rereading the Eides, it seems they were applying the term opposites to a bell curve distribution, where mini-column spacing for Autism was to the far left of the chart and dyslexia was on the far right of the chart.   The great unwashed NT types were stuck in the middle.   

[Lecka]

Thanks, Laughing Cat, that does make sense. 

 

And, I have read other things about autism, that there is a theory that too many connections and a lack of pruning, may be a factor in autism.  I have seen that other places.  It does not seems like it is a totally known thing, yet, but it is seen and thought by some to be related to sensory and processing issues.  I think it is just on the new side, and there are competing theories for what is the unifying theory of autism, and it is still not decided what is absolutely most relevant and how it all fits together. 

 

But, yes, the "lack of pruning" is a current theory for autism, and seems like it is going places. 

 

Also, thanks for the clarification, Heathermomster. 

 

Edit:  I don't really keep up there anymore, but for autism, there is stuff like this on the SFARI home page.  They do little explanations about new research, that I think are pretty helpful.  There will be a lot there talking about too many synapses, differences in white matter, and lack of pruning, and things like that. 

 

It has turned out to be things that are not practically helpful for me, but I am glad someone is doing this research. And I will probably go back through it again at some point. 

 

Also I should really re-read The Autistic Brain by Temple Grandin.  I just had it out of the library when it was new, and I did not read through it really carefully. 

[Pen]

Geodob, I just do not think there is evidence right now to say "while with autism, they have to a strong local brain region to deal with phonemic awareness." 

 

How does the study say that the parts of the brain dealing with phonemic awareness are never effected? 

 

I think talking about that, and talking about associating words with their meanings, are two different things.

 

I agree --- it totally seems to fit, that associating words with their meanings is a logical conclusion.

 

I just don't see "so of course phonemic awareness is fine" as a logical conclusion. 

 

I agree with what Pen said -- maybe someone with autism also has a problem with reading/decoding (as opposed to comprehension -- which is much more expected with autism), but it is maybe a separate thing from the ASD in some way. 

 

Especially when auditory processing can be difficult with autism.  Isn't auditory processing going to make phonemic awareness more difficult, a lot of the time?  And ----- even if it is not the exact same mechanism of "difficulty with phonemic awareness" seen with other people, maybe it doesn't matter.  If you cannot match up sounds you hear to letters you see, then that is a problem, however it is happening. 

 

My main reason to be hung up on this issue, is really, just not wanting people to rule out certain reading approaches or avenues for reading remediation, b/c they might hear "oh, that is for dyslexia, and ASD and dyslexia are opposites, so you might want to look elsewhere."  I also don't want to have people told "ASD and dyslexia are opposites, so no need to worry about phonemic awareness with ASD, that is not a problem you would ever find with ASD."  I don't think those are good conclusions.

 

Even though I think the broader conclusions make sense and would be helpful to people in trying to understand things or make educational decisions.   

 

(ETA I think after reading several Geodob posts I have acquired some of that style!)

 

But there might be some use in sorting out what is likely to be a problem and what is likely to help?

 

So, if auditory processing is common with ASD, and a child has ASD and trouble learning to read, one might strongly consider that there could be an auditory processing problem?

And maybe think of things like LIPS as being likely to be helpful?

That may not be the problem, but it would make sense to look if auditory issues and ASD are commonly found together?

 

I know several deaf people who can read extremely well, so I know that it is possible to be unable to match letters and sounds in the ordinary way and yet to be able to read. Probably the strategies for that are yet different. I know it is often whole word based, but I am not sure if that was so for the people I know.

 

I have the sense that ASD children I know tend to hyperfocus on things NT people may not even notice,

A pattern in a carpet, or a stain on the wall, or a fly buzzing in the distance, or a lump on a sock...

and so, not sure about this, but I think maybe colorful programs that help bring the focus to the right thing to focus on--colored letters, for example, might help?

As well as perhaps also multisensory approaches being especially useful?

 

For my ds that is the opposite: colorful programs cause more trouble. He does best with clean, crisp black and white letters or numbers as the case may be. And things like sand trays or clay etc. for learning reading were totally useless for him. He also pulls in clues from all over, so picture laden reading programs led to too much figuring out the passage from the pictures and guessing the words, rather than reading it.

 

I also wonder whether this may at all relate to the issue of programs that are rule based?

 

Another thing I ponder is that for people I've known who had what might be termed Aspergers, they do seem to have something along the lines of "hyperlexia"--really good at detailed reading and analytic research at a high level?  

Were good readers sometimes very young.  

And then as it gets into full fledged autism, there seems to be significant impairment?

Rather than even more strength in that sort of ability?

 

Maybe with Aspergers there is strong local connection in a brain region to deal with reading tasks like phonemic awareness etc. extra well?

But maybe with Autism there is damage of some sort that is greater than the tendency toward strong local connections?

Or could the connections become so extremely tight that that itself causes another type of problem in making associations needed?

A difficulty in connecting between the sound 'area' and the letter 'area', perhaps, or connecting between single letters  and  groups of letters perhaps?

 

And maybe as more gets learned and understood,

it would turn out that certain "dyslexia" programs would be particularly helpful for autism based reading issues?

[Pen]

PS I am having an image of an analogy to eyes placed (as in horses) far apart on the sides of head, versus eyes placed, (like in humans), both forward facing, and there are advantages and disadvantages to each. 

[Lecka]

I think for autism, an individualized plan tailored to strengths, whatever those strengths are, and tailored to observed learning style, whatever that learning style is, is the best thing. 

 

I would just not rule anything out without trying it.

 

There is a lot of variation, and "unique learning profiles," and kids who fit into one kind of approach or another. 

 

I think all the approaches are worth trying, if there is a basic premise that it could be effective, as you start to learn what works best and what doesn't work as well with a child.

 

I think all the comparisons are helpful when they are in service to this goal, but not helpful if they can come across like "don't try this," when really if conditions A, B, and C are present, it would make sense to try it. 

 

 

[Pen]

So for the ASD/Autistic individual, you are stating that a dysfunction with the Microglia prevents the appropriate pruning necessary for the development of the longer range connections? The old columns linger and there is no space for new ones to grow?

 

 

 

 

Or, there is no space for signals to pass from one column to a column a long way away.

That signals would ricochet around in the local short range area.

[Heathermomster]

Or, there is no space for signals to pass from one column to a column a long way away.

That signals would ricochet around in the local short range area.

You made me think of a pinball machine.

 

Geodob wrote the following:

 

 

Which basically replaces 'old learning', with 'new learning'.

As well as makes space inside the brain cells, for new connections to be formed.

 

 

I think of new limbs growing on a tree after overcrowded limbs have been pruned.

 

Perhaps, Geodob will explain explain better what that means.  I am not sure my hasty paraphrase is correct to begin with.

[LaughingCat]

In How We Learn he talks about studies that have shown that once something is learned - it is learned forever.  But that access to that something can be quickly lost and regained with later exposure .  And a bunch about how forgetting is very important in remembering -- like  going longer w/out accessing a memory is actually better for long term access than repeated access is -  you lose more access before pulling the memory up but then keeping the access way open longer after the 2nd access.  

 

Anyway... makes me wonder if the pruning is how access is lost -- so if you are not having local prunings - then you would not be losing access that you need to in order to prioritize the memories.  You remember too much in affect.      Too many local prunings and you would not be able to get to the memory at all.  Very interesting to think about - I'd like to see more hypothesis along these lines.

[Pen]

You made me think of a pinball machine.

 

Geodob wrote the following:

 

I think of new limbs growing on a tree after overcrowded limbs have been pruned.

 

Perhaps, Geodob will explain explain better what that means.  I am not sure my hasty paraphrase is correct to begin with.

 

 

I don't know what Geodob has in mind. Hope he'll explain. To me it sounds like both/and (pinball type analogy situation, AND overcrowded tree limbs analogy) would be likely true if the minicolumns idea is real and relevant.

 

Pinball machine was an analogy used in something, maybe a Coursera course?, I had been looking at about learning.

[LaughingCat]

Pinball machine analogy was used in the Coursera course about learning (can't remember the name?) - it even matched the long range and local differentiations as I remember - the ball going far and the ball bouncing in one area

[PeterPan]

PS I am having an image of an analogy to eyes placed (as in horses) far apart on the sides of head, versus eyes placed, (like in humans), both forward facing, and there are advantages and disadvantages to each. 

To to rabbit trail too much, but we learned at our zoo days program that eye placement distinguishes predator and prey.

[Lecka]

n/m

[hsmomshutterbug]

I haven't read through the incredible number of other replies you have received to your original question,  looks like there have been quite a few rabbit trails,  so I apologize if I'm repeating what's already been said….Your original question was dyslexic friendly curric. recommendations….

We only uncovered a formal dyslexia diagnosis recently….We are now on Barton Reading & Spelling Level 3 teaching my 9 year old.  It's been a blessing and it is working well for him.   You mentioned needing "more thorough phonics"….Most often the problem for dyslexics w/ reading is not necessarily a lack of phonics knowledge, but a lack of phonemic awareness, two different skill sets.  Barton level 1 basically concentrates on building the skill of phonemic awareness.