Talk:Deep dyslexia

Untitled
While this article has a good number of references, the references themselves are insufficient: they need to be expanded so people can find the original material. RJFJR (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Coultheart should read Coltheart
Spelling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.111.13.200 (talk) 04:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's check more sources to see how the term "deep dyslexia" relates to "alexia."
I think some sources would indicate that "deep dyslexia" is a term that can be applied to cases of dyslexia (early childhood onset) as well as to alexia (onset at later ages). Let's all check sources and see what they say. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Deep dyslexia has always been part of Alexia (Acquired dyslexia) it has never been included as Developmental dyslexia, except when in the 1990s Castles and Coltheart confused the issues by trying to use Alexia terminology to define developmental dyslexia. dolfrog (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is possible to acquire dyslexia at a young age via severe head injury, or via Transient Ischaemic Attack (TIA) but this is not developmental dyslexia, but Alexia. The cognitive deficits or disorders which cause the developmental dyslexia symptom especially the genetic issues are present possibly from birth well before learning to read dolfrog (talk) 02:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Expansion of page
Hi, this is Dylan Ludwick and Karen Monuszko. We plan to edit this page for our cognitive psychology class at Davidson College. Here is a basic outline of the additions we hope to make.

Addition to ‘Classification’ section

-How deep dyslexics differ from other forms of “central dyslexia”

-Acquired vs. developmental dyslexia

Addition to ‘Signs and Symptoms’ section

-Expand on characteristics of deep dyslexics: give examples of morphological errors, semantic errors, imageability effect errors, part of speech effect errors, non-word errors.

- phonetic complexity/phonetic false memories

-Also possible causes/damage associated with these errors (Coslett)

-guidelines for diagnosis

Add section on ‘Different Theories of Deep Dyslexia’

-reading by damaged L hemisphere reading system vs. relying on R hemisphere orthographic/semantic processing

-multiple deficit hypothesis (Morton and Patterson, 1980)

-failure of inhibition theory (Buchanan, McEwen, Westbury, & Libben, 2003)

-Implicit tasks and explicit access without production are normal in deep dyslexics (Colangelo)

-imageability effect

- MEG studies

Add section on ‘Recovery’

-focus on semantic processing, not grapheme-phoneme or lexical-semantic processing (Riley)

-focus on lexical route (Ska)

Other potential sources

Karen Monuszko (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome
First of all welcome to wikipedia. I hope you enjoy your psychology project here. I am looking forward towards your improvement of this article. I have never edited this article and my knowledge of dyslexia goes back to my psychology and education courses, so I am not really an expert. I have taken a look at your editions since I was one of the main editors of the stroop effect article, which is going to be one of your class companions projects.

I have some experience in wikipedia and medical-psychology-neuroscience articles. I will try to help both of you as much as I can and you can ask me anything you want regarding wikipedia editing or the article in itself. On the other hand I also have to tell you that I will problably monitor closely your changes to the article and be quite strict on it so any changes made are in line with wikipedia policies. Regarding sources, I have already contacted your teacher to explain to him that in wikipedia secondary sources are the prime references for articles as opposed to primary sources. In the context of psychology, medicine and science in general scientific "experiment" articles are considered primary sources and therefore generally should not be added as references, whereas the way of improving articles such as this one is to find scientific reviews in peer-reviewed journals or scientific books. As you probably know review scientific texts are those in which an author instead of giving new evidence in an issue with experiments summarizes the existing literature over an issue and provides what he considers the state of the art in a field. I took a (quick) look to your references and 2 of them are appropiate references since they are reviews (Cosslett and probably Coltheart) but the two other are primary references and therefore are not appopiate for use as references in wikipedia except in very specific cases. Please contact your teacher to see how to proccedeed regarding the use of primary sources.

I also want to congratulate you for the use of templates regarding sources. They make reference checking much easier. On the other hand I might be wrong but it seems that you created the references by hand. You might not know that you can automatically create references from scientific journals by inserting the pubmed number (pmid) or digital object identifier (doi): go to the editing toolbar, click cite, click templates, click cite journal and insert either of the two identifiers in its appropiate place, and voila!: you have your citation. It has the advantage that it reduces errors (although it is better checking since sometimes it makes some mistakes) and also gives a link to the article abstract direcly when you go with the mouse over the inline citation or at the reference at the end of an article. For example in the case of Jones-1985- article Deep dyslexia, imageability, and ease of predication just by inserting its doi (10.1016/0093-934X(85)90094-X), obtained from either pubmed (pmid:3971130 see or the publishing house abstract to the article (See ) I get (in this case using doi):. You might notice that gives an error in the year that you can easily fix and have:. I am not sure if I have explained myself adequately but these kind of things make editing muuuuuuuuuuuch easier, so if you did not really understood my explanation please ask.

Best regards. --Garrondo (talk) 10:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Karen and welcome also from me! I fully agree with Garrondo's comments on primary versus secondary sources. I would like to add a comment on the age of the sources. The three Jones sources are all from 1985 and that is quite old, almost 30 years. Surely a lot must have happened since then? Please try and find some more recents sources. With friendly regards,  Lova Falk     talk   13:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Peer reviewers
Peer reviewers, our last edit was 01:56, 23 March 2013. Thanks! Karen Monuszko (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments for improvement
I have taken a look at the article. It has been vastly improved when compared to the version before students came here. Moreover, while from my point of view there is still an overuse of primary articles, it also uses different very interesting secondary sources, which make fact checking of the article much easier, and even the use of primary sources is quite sensible and not used to create laundry-lists of random results. In this sense I feel this article is among the best work of the Davidson class students.

I will post here several comments for improvement both to match wiki formatting and on content. Do not take them as an exhaustive list, since they will come from a fast checking of the article. Moreover some comments may be to content before the students came, but it is easier to comment on the article as a whole.

--Garrondo (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Format

 * There should not be spaces between two sequential references (e.g:semantic errors during reading and the impairment of nonword reading.[2] [3] should become semantic errors during reading and the impairment of nonword reading.[2][3])
 * There should not be spaces after the full stop and the referece. (e.g: more precise mechanisms used in normal reading. [16] should be more precise mechanisms used in normal reading.[16])
 * Refences should be after the sentence and not before the full stop (e.g forcing reading to proceed through the semantic route [2]. should be changed to forcing reading to proceed through the semantic route.[2]), and same occurs with other punctuation marks such as commas (e.g change be a more severe form of phonological dyslexia[8][9][10] to  be a more severe form of phonological dyslexia;[8][9][10])
 * Bolding: there is a specific style wikipedia guideline (See WP:MOS) which is overly specific and detailed and boring for recent editors. It has a section on bolding (See WP:MOSBOLD). In summary, bolding is only occassionally used in Wikipedia. All in-text bolding should be removed.
 * Moreover, I believe that per MOSBOLD in most of your cases should be in quotations (models) or simple style (other cases). I am going to fix it myself. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

More to come if students are interested. Bests. --Garrondo (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you VERY much for your praise and for your helpful comments. I will be sure to make these changes. Any future suggestions are much appreciated! Thanks again. Karen Monuszko (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

One more on format: --Garrondo (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Capital letters: I do not think that the models are names by themselves. I do not think they merit the use of title case. In text I would change them to lower case (and unbolded as proposed above): e.g. I would change The Morton and Patterson (Dual Route) Model is based upon the to The Morton and Patterson (dual route) model is based upon the. Similarly titles should be changed to sentence case (e.g:Dual Route Model would be Dual route model).

One more: Internal links to technical or important concepts are very interesting and the article at the moment is probably underlinked. I would recommend the addition of many more internal links. I would say as a hint that any concept that 14 years old may not know should be linked. On the other hand: concepts should be only linked in the first appearance of the article. In this sense I have fixed some overlinking but I may have missed some more. --Garrondo (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added more links in addition to yours. I do not see any other concept were a link is clearly needed. --Garrondo (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why did you include links to non-existent articles such as "central dyslexias" and "peripheral dyslexias"? Karen Monuszko (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * See Red link. In a nutshell: Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it. I seem to remember that even there was some short of scientific study on how they encouraged article creation. They are like somebody shouting at you: Are you bold enough? Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Classification section
The section appears to contradict itself since it first says that it is defined as acquired, then that is was only defined this way in the past since cases have been found in developmental disorders. This has to be clarified: How is it defined in most reliable secondary sources these days? (I would say that still as acquired). How can this be integrated with the secondary reliable source that says that it has also been found in Williams syndrome?

A proposal as an idea (although you are the ones with more knowleadge of sources); I also think that my proposal says almost the same in a simpler way:

Deep dyslexia is usually classified as an acquired reading disorder in previously literate adults as a consequence of a brain injury, as as opposed to a developmental dyslexia. However, recently, developmental deep dyslexia has also been reported in children with Williams syndrome.

What do you think? You will have to include the sources etc.--Garrondo (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead
The lead should be a summary of the full article. Right now it does not have any info from the mechanism and management sections. It would be great if you could do a brief summary of these sections to enhance the lead. Citations are not needed in the lead.

See: WP:lead

Since you have some work proposed here I will not make further comments until they are carried out. If you need anything simply ask. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Follow up
It seems my comments were useful. It is being great to work with you, since I do feel the effort is worth it.

I have crossed the comments above that do not apply anymore.--Garrondo (talk) 10:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Images
Adding some images could make the article much more appealing. Some ideas: a brain scheme for the left-righ hemisphere section, an individual reading for the lead and a CT scan or MRI showing brain damage for the classification section. Maybe you could think of something to illustrate the ease of predication: ease of predication, is a rating of how easy it is to come up with simple factual statements or attributes of a word.[16][18] For example, when presented with the word "dog", an individual may come up with statements, or predicates, such as "has four legs", "is an animal", or "barks and wags its tail": a different example could be used with an image of the detailed example and the predicates as text.

If you do not know how to find adequate (specially important is copyright status) images or how to format them ask me. --Garrondo (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have added two further images to the article: I hope you like them (and if you do not explain why and simply eliminate them... you are the main authors of the article :-). Bests. --Garrondo (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Links towards the article
The article appears to be linked in very few articles. Maybe you could think of other articles that could point to this article and insert a link in them either in-text (preferred option), in the "see also" section, or at the beginning of specific sections (for this one there is an specific template that has to be used). The more links the article has the more probable it is to attract traffic, which will lead to further improvements in the future. --Garrondo (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Tags
I have eliminated the tags at the beginning of the article. The article right now is far from perfect but it neither has any obvious problems. Moreover the specific tags had been there for a long time, and I do not think they do apply anymore since both refs and content have been very much improved with the students work. --Garrondo (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

One last secondary sources proposal
Karen: there are 3 sources in the article widely used (Coslett 2000, and Colangelo 2006 and 2007). The first is a review, while the two others are primary articles. While as I said the use of primary sources is quite sensible as it is, I feel that it could probably be improved without much effort.

I am quite sure that at this point you already know most of the references almost by heart, and specially the Coslett one since it is the most widely used, and also that in many cases that you use Colangelo (also other primary sources as a citation) the Coslett ref would also cover that content. It would be great if in such cases you could add the Cosleet citation (or any of the already used other secondary sources) in addition to the already existing primary citations. My experience is that this will almost carve in stone your content, since it would be really hard to improve its sourcing. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, thank you. I will take a look at that and see what I can do. Also, the first brain image that you added (of the CT scan) seems to be showing lesions due to a traumatic brain injury that caused brain herniation in the individual. Brain herniation is a much more severe issue than brain damage causing deep dyslexia. Brain herniation can lead to brain death or severe neurological problems. Therefore, I'm not sure that the damage shown in the image is relevant to this article, because damage causing deep dyslexia is most likely much milder. Thoughts?--Karen Monuszko (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well... not really sure. We do not fully know the outcome in this case, but it is true that maybe damage was quite extensive, so most probably patient would be so much affected that even if he had deep dyslexia it may go unnoticed (or at least would not be his main problem) due to the many other deficits he would have. On the other hand the article source of the image says as conclussion:
 * At one month from admission the patient made moderate functional improvements; following        commands intermittently and speaking slowly. He has residual right hemiparesis while         the left upper extremity strength is near normal.
 * This would indicate that the patient survived and moreover that only one month after injury already had improved to the point of understanding basic commands, with right physical deficits but not left. All this would be compatible with a deep dyslexia linked to aphasic problems in the patient. Feel free to do as you feel most comfortable. If I have time I will look for another image (you can also do it: search in wikipedia commons, any image there can be used in wikipedia
 * Also: I have just seen the cat's image and I feel it is a great image: Really informative, but also very attractive. Great work.


 * I have also eliminated the two mentions to the Rilling source. This source is a single-case study so to reference the last two sentences to it is going a bit over the top. Sentences I am referring to are: Regardless of the methodology, treatment studies with deep dyslexics are difficult because much of the information regarding this disability is still heavily debated.[citation needed] Treatment options may be successful on repairing one route of reading but not another, and success for one patient may not translate to success in another which are extremely general conclussions and we would need a similarly general source (review) and not a single-case description (lowest in a pyramid of evidence-based medicine, since it is only anecdotal evidence).
 * --Garrondo (talk) 08:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Updated ratings
I have updated all wikiprojects quality ratings from start to B-class. See for example what this means for the med project WikiProject_Medicine/Assessment. In summary: The article is mostly complete and without major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards and Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher.

I hope this serves as an indication of the great work I consider you have done. In this sense nothing would be most rewarding than you continuing the improvement of this and/or any other psychology and medicine articles once your class project ends. Wikipedia needs new editors like you. Bests.

--Garrondo (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Great job!
Wow! Garrondo and Karen Monuszko, such a great job and such a great way of working together! Very well done! Thank you! Lova Falk    talk   07:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Davidson College supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2013 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)