An interventional study of Phonological and Visual-attention in Dyslexia, Developmental, sponsored by Fondation Lenval. Completed at 1 site in France. Open to participants aged 8 Years to 13 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2023-09-29.
Sponsored by Fondation Lenval · Not applicable, Interventional, and Other
At least, three theoretical frameworks are currently involved in therapeutic research in developmental dyslexia. Each theoretical framework relies on the type of underlying cognitive processes that is viewed as impaired: 1°) phonological processing, 2°) cross modal integration, 3°) visual attention processing. In this controlled and randomized study, three types of computerized training are combined in a multi-factorial remedial approach in 8 to 12 year old children with dyslexia. The main objective is to compare the effectiveness of this remedial approach which combines phonological, visual-attentional and cross-modal training with conventional non-intensive and non-specific rehabilitation
Developmental dyslexia is defined as a specific and lasting reading learning disorder. This neurodevelopmental disorder has a severe impact on overall academic learning and behavior, compromises professional and social development and affects 10% of school-age children. As a public health problem, its diagnosis and management are still highly controversial, and the lack of scientific consensus leads to great heterogeneity in clinical practices and post-treatment outcomes. Three therapeutic axes guide research for developmental dyslexia. The first axis is based on phonological deficits. According to the phonological representation hypothesis, a specific deficit in the processing of phonological representations that support the identification of sounds is the cause of the reading disorder. The second axis focuses on attention-related cognitive deficits. According to the visuo-attention deficit hypothesis, a lack of the visuo-attention processing can be viewed as one of the explanatory causes of a dysfunction in letter identification and reading procedures. The third axis aims to achieve automatized processing for letter/sound association. According to the axis, a lack of cross-modal integration in word decoding is altered by a lack of simultaneous association between of a visual and an auditory stimulus.
Many studies attempted to exclusively validate selective remediation according to causal hypotheses that are mainly cross-modal, phonological or visuo-attentional. However, the evaluation of these underlying processing in dyslexic children shows great clinical heterogeneity since most of children simultaneously have the three deficits. Furthermore, no study evaluates the benefits of combining these different trainings on reading skills.
In this controlled and randomized study, three types of computerized training are combined in a multi-factorial remedial approach in 8 to 12 year old children with dyslexia. The main objective is to compare the effectiveness of this remedial approach which combines phonological, visual-attentional and cross-modal training with conventional non-intensive and non-specific rehabilitation.
The secondary objectives will be 1°) to compare the effectiveness on reading skills of a phonological training, versus a visuo-attentional training, 2°) to compare the effectiveness on reading skills from in the order of phonological and visuo-attentional training, 3°) to compare the evolution of performance in comprehension and written production at the end of the three training sessions and 4°) to evaluate child and parents' perception for the outcome of the reading disorder at the end of the training sessions using Likert scales, by means of a questionnaire. The analysis of the results will make possible to evaluate a remedial approach to dyslexia in a clinical context and to better understanding and management of written language disorders.
124 studies on the registry are indexed under Dyslexia; 27 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 145 is above the median of 76 across 106 interventional studies indexed under Dyslexia.
Browse Dyslexia studies →Fondation Lenval is the lead sponsor of 60 studies on the registry; 18 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
Other: Phonological
Other: Visual-attention
* Phase 1: intervention without targeted daily training (30 minutes/ week, for 8 weeks) * Phase 2: intervention with targeted daily training * Phonological training (15 minutes/ day, 5 days/week, for 8 weeks) * Visuo-attentional training (15 minutes/ day, 5 days/week, for 8 weeks) * Cross-modal training (15 minutes/ day, 5 days/week, for 8 weeks) * Phase 3: stopping training sessions for 8 weeks
* Phase 1: intervention without targeted daily training (30 minutes/ week, for 8 weeks) * Phase 2: intervention with targeted daily training * Visuo-attentional training (15 minutes/ day, 5 days/week, for 8 weeks) * Phonological training (15 minutes/ day, 5 days/week, for 8 weeks) * Cross-modal training (15 minutes/ day, 5 days/week, for 8 weeks) * Phase 3: stopping training sessions for 8 weeks
reading skills effectiveness
measure of reading level (reading age) : accuracy (number of errors) and reading time (in seconds) in raw scores and standard deviation
Time frame: 26 weeks to baseline
reading skills effectiveness 8 weeks
Measure of reading level : accuracy (error rates) and reading time (in milliseconds) in raw scores and standard deviations
Time frame: 8 weeks to baseline
reading skills effectiveness 18 weeks
Measure of reading level : accuracy (error rates) and reading time (in milliseconds) in raw scores and standard deviations
Time frame: 18 weeks to baseline
orthographic skills effectiveness
count of orthographic (number of errors) in raw scores and standard deviation
Time frame: 26 weeks to baseline
reading comprehension skills effectiveness
measure of reading comprehension level (error rates) in raw scores and standard deviation
Time frame: 26 weeks to baseline
perception of the evolution of the reading disorder
measure the perception of the evolution of the reading disorder by Likert scales : Number of items: 13 * Score from 5 to 1 * For example, "I like to read" a lot = 5, a lot = 4, normal" = 3, a little = 2, not at all = 1 Another example "it's easy to read", really very easy = 5, I do well = 4, normal = 3, a little difficult = 4, very difficult = 1 * The maximum value 5 means that reading and learning are perceived very positively * The minimum value 1 means that reading and learning are perceived very negatively * Results: An increase in scores measured before and after the three training sessions means an improvement
Time frame: 26 weeks to baseline
This study is completed, as verified in Sep 2023. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Fondation Lenval