Thursday, May 31, 2012

Yang saya percaya, Allah ga akan lama2 biarin manusia mengubur rapat rahasia yg tak sepantasnya. Namun Allah, menguji kita,meminta dengan sabar menunggu terbuka dengan ridha nya ...

"Malu Ku Pinta"

Aku yang berdiri di dalam gelap memendam rindu
Menatap terus terus dan terus ke sudut terjauh, tau kah kau apa yang ku rindu?

Aku yang berdiri di dalam gelap menahan resah
Sibuk disini menjalin-jalin benang asa, tahukah kau apa harapanku?

Meski terlambat ku sadari, aku hanya perlu mengetuk pintu tuhan
Ketika dibukakan pintu tatap wajahnya dan memohon

Yang mulia, wahai Tuhan ku ..
Sudilah kiranya kau beri aku cahaya, ketenangan, bisikan yang menggugah,cerita indah,senyum yang tulus, genggaman tangan yang hangat

Oh betapa banyak pintaku, aku merintih
Malu itu menyergap aku sang mahluk kerdil yang kesepian di tengah padang yang gelap, di dera angin yang tak punya kata ampun di kamusnya, disiram air aku bak bunga kekeringan dan disini aku menderita

Oh sungguh ku mahluk tanpa daya

Defeated by 'business' .. So sad

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Is The Corpus Callosum the Missing Link in Dyslexia?

---by Dorothy van den Honert

The terms dyslexia and learning -disability have been used interchangeably and misused for mild retardation and ADD so often that it behooves a writer on the subject to start by defining his terms. Dyslexia, etymologically, merely means poor reading. However, by now the term has come to mean a specific type of poor reading which, in a shortened form of the official definition, is present in a person of normal or better intelligence who has no medical, psychological, or socio-economic condition sufficiently acute to account for the deficit in reading. The specific peculiarities that characterize dyslectic reading are as follows:
  • difficulty with sound-symbol matching     2,22,25,30,32
  • disregard of punctuation
  • omission or inappropriate insertion of functors
  • omission of syllables in multisyllable words
  • poor phonetic decoding skills
  • poor comprehension in oral and silent reading
  • poor letter-sequencing in spelling and reading
  • omitting or miscalling syntactical endings such as -ed, or -s
  • lack of phonemic awareness
  • substituting semantic criterior for phonetic criterior: ripped for torn, large for big, etc.
  • confusion of similar-looking abstract words, such as form and from
These kinds of reading mistakes are peculiar to dyslexia. they are not made routinely by children who are merely slow, disinterested in reading, emotionally disturbed, or undereducated.
In the dyslectic person a variety of non-reading problems, co-occur with poor reading. These are also problems for which no other cause such as retardation, social or medical factors, is apparently present. These include:
  • left-right confusion
  • difficulty remembering ordered lists, such as the months of the year
  • difficulty remembering a group of unrelated facts like the multiplication table
  • deficit in tactile localization skills     14
  • markedly slow interhemispheric transfer time     13,14,15
  • abnormal distractibility, "twitchiness" and hyperactivity
  • problems with fine motor control in handwriting
  • visual problems associated with motor control of the eyes: lack of smooth tracking, lack of smooth convergence, unstable ocular dominance, intermittent mismatched focusing and poor stereopsis at the midline.
Clearly the findings from many years laboratory of work that the dyslectic person does not properly utilize his left, language areas of the brain during reading can account for his reading problems. Dyslexia has a strong auditory component stemming from the inability to match sounds with their corresponding letters or separate a word into its auditory components, both specialties of the angular gyrus in the left hemisphere. Indeed, some of the most recent work shown that dyslectic individuals do not use the angular gyrus  when reading. 32,17  This fact helps explain why Enhanced Lateralization, the technique by which the left language area is forced to work by having the right distracted and out of the processing, improves reading dramatically. 35,36,37
But how to account for the equally strong visual motor control, and attentional problems that have nothing to do with sound-symbol matching? Probably the most parsimonious explanation is that the problem is one of poor cerebral organization.
 One section of the brain which is intimately involved in cerebral organization, both during growth and all through adulthood, is the corpus callosum. 23   This thick bridge of neural tissue in the middle of the brain connects the two hemispheres, conveying information from one side to the other. Far more than being a mere information carrier, however, it seems to take an active role from infancy in directing the development of the brain into the highly lateralized organ it is. The function of the corpus callosum during cognitive activity seems to be one of maintaining the balance of arousal and attention between the two sides that enables each side to contribute its part to achieve an integrated whole. Thus it allocates each kind of processing to the area of the brain which is programmed for the job, controls arousal and the distribution of attention over the two hemispheres and enables sustained attention during complex cognitive tasks. 12
The corpus callosum is also involved in the control of certain kinds of eye movements. When the eyes move, as in making saccades, or in convergence, information as to what to do comes to the brain from two sources-- the eye muscles that tell where the eyes are now, and the two retinas, which see slightly different things. 33   This input goes to both sides of the brain, and smooth integration of this information requires fast and accurate interhemispheric "chit-chat." Thus the corpus callosum is intimately involved in smooth tracking, smooth convergence, stable ocular dominance, and matched focusing.
Transfer of information on the locus of touch from the fingertips of one hand to the other without looking also requires use of the corpus callosum. The information on which finger was touched must cross this neural bridge to get to the opposite hand.
It seems reasonable to assume that without the fast, accurate guidance of a central control mechanism, the brain might show the kinds of symptoms which we see in dyslexia. For instance, poor allocation of neural space and insufficient arousal of the left hemisphere might encourage inappropriate reliance on right hemispheric strategies during language and number processing. Without the sustained attention and focus provided by a robust corpus callosum, you would expect the kind of distractibility and inattentiveness so often seen in dyslectic children.
Considering the extremely fine and rapid interhemispheric transfer of information necessary for smooth ocular functioning, it is reasonable to assume that slow or degraded transfer of input across the hemispheres might result in poor ocular motor skills.
As for tactile localization -- the transfer of the locus of touch, unseen, from the fingertips of one hand to those of the other -- it is poor in everybody below the age of about six, when the corpus callosum is not yet fully myelinated. By the age of ten, however, when myelinization is virtually complete, normals have no trouble with this. Dyslectics score like everybody else at age six, but they still score poorly in adulthood. People without a corpus callosum cannot do it at all.
One of the most interesting pieces of evidence comes from some work done with high speed photography which showed that dyslectics' movements on one side of the body are out of synchrony with movements on the other. 4  For instance, if a dyslectic child hears a click, his right side turns toward the sound a fraction of a second before his left side turns. When he blinks, the right eyelid starts down before the left. When he smiles, the right side of his mouth turns up before the left one. All this happens so fast that it is unnoticeable to the naked eye, except for giving the impression that the child is a bit "twitchy." Apparently the child does not hear the sound twice, but the secondary signal that comes across the corpus callosum from the right hemisphere to the left is late getting there, so in effect, the child is reacting twice to a single stimulus. This effect could account for some of the hyperactivity and distractibility so common in LD children and would certainly make sustained attention tiring. It also could explain double regressions in eye motions during linear scanning and other defects in smooth ocular movements.
Another piece of evidence is perhaps the most telling. In 1995, Professor George Hynd and his colleagues found that "subtle neurodevelopmental variation in the morphology of the corpus callosum may be associated with the difficulty that dyslectic children experience in reading and on tasks involving interhemispheric transfer." 18  Now if you decide to teach someone to read while minimizing the use of his corpus callosum during training, the results are astounding; his learning speed increases by a factor of somewhere between four and ten! 35   Part of the technique by-passes the corpus callosum entirely by sending verbal exercises directly to the left hemisphere only, while distracting the right side with qualitatively different input. Thus the right hemisphere is kept out of the verbal action by being occupied with suitable work of its own so that the left is forced to process the language. The technique mechanically supplies the allocation of space, the arousal, focusing, and sustained attention that the corpus callosum doesn't provide and cuts out that slow secondary signal. 29
Unilateral delivery of input to each side is achieved in the auditory system if each signal originates in a single auditory field. 28  This can be done by putting the student into padded stereo earphones, with the words going into the right ear and music into the left for non-stop transfer to the opposite hemisphere. The verbal input to the left hemisphere is a phonetic sound-symbol matching task which the right hemisphere is incapable of doing.
Continuous unilateral delivery of input in the visual system can be achieved with the use of the I-Card, as described in the "The Jigsaw Puzzle." It provides in visual system the single input that by-passes the corpus callosum.
Students taught under these conditions of "Enhanced Lateralization" since 1972 have routinely achieved reading gains of two and three years in one year of tutoring, but it is interesting to note that there has been no obvious change in callosal functioning. Their tactile localization remains poor and they are still distractible. Without expensive equipment, unavailable to a public school teacher, it is not possible to tell whether eye motions have smoothed out. (However, you often get a startling, serendipitous improvement in math skills.) It would seem that there may be an improvement in the functioning of the left hemisphere, but the corpus callosum probably remains unchanged. Fortunately, the improvement in reading skill is retained after training, even under normal free-field conditions. Spelling improves, but not dramatically.
It remains true that normal readers occasionally have some abnormal architectural oddities in the language area. It is also true that people without any corpus callosum, whether from birth or surgical sectioning, can often read without showing the symptoms on list #1, though, like dyslectics, they tire quickly.  Perhaps the most sensible conclusion is that a learning-disability results only from a combination of the two problems: a defective language area and a faulty corpus callosum. Certainly a corpus callosum that does not effectively regulate arousal, attention, and allocation of neural space and repeatedly sends delayed or degraded signals to an already poorly developed language area sounds like a recipe for verbal disaster. And most of the sub-types, classifications, symptoms, deficits and assorted peculiarities found in the learning-disabled population can be accounted for by postulating varying degrees of malfunction somewhere in those two areas.
Best of all, the experts that hold out for visual problems in dyslexia and those who opt for auditory ones are both right. The timing problem in interhemispheric transfer of information can embrace both views and suggests that future research might profitably be concentrated on why the corpus callosum is so poky in the first place

Reference :
Bakker, D., The Effects of Hemisphere-Specific Stimulation on Reading Performance of Reading-Disabled Boys, Paper presented at 31st Annual Conference of the Orton Society, Boston, 1980.

 Bogyo, L. C., Minor Hernisphere Reading- or: Reading in Deep Dyslexia: It's All Right, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1979.
  Child Neuropsychology, Volume 1, Ed., J. Orbzut and G. Hynd, Academic Press,1986.   Condon, William, Asynchrony, Omni, December, 1982, and personal communication.     de Lacoste-Utamsing, C., and Holloway, R., Sexual Dimorphism in the Human Corpus Callosum, Science, Vol 216, 1982.    Dennis, M., Impaired Sensory and Motor Differentiation with CC Agenesis: A Lack of Callosal Inhibition during Ontogeny? Neuropsychologia, vol 14 p. 455-469, 1976.   Doidge, Norman, The Brain that Changes Itself,  Viking,  2007   Duffy, F., Denkla, M., Bartels, P., and Sandini, G., Dyslexia: Regional Differences in Brain Electrical Activity by Topographic Mapping, Annals of Neurology, vol 7 #5, 1980    Ettlinger, G., Blakemore, C. B., Milner, A. D., and Milner J., Agenesis of the Corpus Callosum: A behavioral Investigation, Brain, vol 75, 1972.   Ferriss, G. S., and Dorsen, M., Agenesis of the Corpus Callosum: Neuropsychological Studies, Cortex, vol2, #2, 1975.   Gazzaniga, M. S., Cognitive and Neurologic Aspects of Hemispheric Disconnection in the Human Brain, Discussions in Neurosciences, vol 4,  #4, FESN, 1978.   Gazzaniga, M., Consistency and Diversity in Brain Organization, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol 299, Ps 415-424, 1977.   Gladstone, M., and Best, C. T., Developmental Dyslexia: The Potential Role of Interhemispheric Collaboration in Reading Acquisition, Hemispheric Function and Collaboration in the Child, Ed., Catherine Best, Academic Press 1983.   Gross, K., Rothenberg, S., Schottenfield, S., and Drake, C., Duration Thresholds for Letter Identification in Left and Right Visual Fields for Normal and Reading-Disabled Children, Neuropsvchologia, vol 6, 1978.   Gross-Glenn, K., and Rothenberg, S., Evidence for Deficit in Interhemispheric Transfer of Information in Dyslexic Boys, International Journal of Neuroscience, vol 24, 1984.   Haggerty, R., and Stamm, J. S., Dichotic Auditory Fusion Levels in Children with Learning-Disabilities, Neuropsychologia, vol 16, 3, 1978.   Harris, A. J., Lateral Dominance and Reading Disability, Journal of Learning Disabilities, vol 12, #5 1979.   Horowitz, B., Rumsey, J.M. and Donohue, B.C., Functional Connectivity of the Angular Gyrus in Normal Reading and Dyslexia, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 95, July 21, 1998   Hynd, G.W. et al., Dyslexia and Corpus Callosum Morphology, Archives of Neurology, vol 52, Jan., 1995   Language Functions and Brain Organization, Ed. Sidney Segalowitz, Academic Press, 1983.   Lehmann, H.J., and Lampe, H., Observations on the Interhemispheric Transmission of Information in 9 Patients with Corpus Callosum Defect, Euro. Neurol. 4: 129-147, 1970.   Leslie, S. C., Davidson, R.J., and Batey, O.B., Purdue Pegboard Performance of Disabled and Normal Readers: Unimanual vs Bimanual Differences, Brain and Language, Vol 24, 2, 1985.   Levy, Jerre, Human Cognition and Lateralization of Cerebral Function, Trends in Neurosciences, 1979.   Levy, Jerre, Interhemispheric Collaboration: Single-Mindedness in the Asymmetric Brain, Hemispheric Function and Collaboration in the Child, Ed., Catherine Best, Academic Press, 1985.   Miller, B., and Taylor, L., Lateralized Suppression of Dichotically Presented Digits after Commissural Section in Man, Science, vol 162, 1968.   Moore, LH et al. Callosal transfer of finger localization in phonologically dyslexic adults. Cortex, 1996, June; 32(2):311-22.   Ojemann, G., and Mateer, C., Human Language Cortex: Localization of Memory, Syntax, and Sequential Motor-Phoneme Identification Systems, Science, vol 205, 1979.   Orbzut, J. E., Orbzut, A., Hynd, G., and Pirozzolo, F. J., Effect of Directed Attention on Cerebral Asymmetries in Normal and Learning-Disabled Children, Developmental Psychology, vol 17, 1, 1981.   Pavlidis, G., Eye Movement Differences Between Dyslexics, Normal and Retarded Readers While Sequentially Fixating Digits, American Journal of Optometry and Physiological Optics, vol 62, 12, 1985.   Phillips, C. P., Representation of the Two Ears in the Auditory Cortex: A Re-examination, International Journal of neuroscience, vol 16, 1982.   Pugh, K.R., Shaywitz, B. A. et al., Auditory Selective Attention: an fMRI Investigation, Neuroimage, Dec., 1996, 159-173.   Saffran, E. M., Bogyo, L. D., Schwartz, M. F., and Marin, 0., Does Deep Dyslexia Reflect Right Hemisphere Reading? Deep Dyslexia, eds., Coltheart, Patterson and Marshall, Routledge and Kegan Paul. 1980.   Salamy, A., Commissural Transmission: Maturational Changes in Humans, Science, vol 200 1978.   Shaywitz, S.E., Shaywitz, B.A., Pugh, K.R., et al., Functional Disruption in the Organization of the Brain for Reading in Dyslexia, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, vol 95, pp 2636-2641, March, 1998.   Stein, J. and Fowler, S., Visual Dyslexia, Trends in Neurosciences, vol 4, 4, 1981.   Sugishita, M., Mental Association of the Minor Hemisphere of a Commissurotomy Patient, Neuropsychologia, vol 16, 2, 1978.   van den Honert, D., A Neurological Technique for Training Dyslectics, Journal of Learning-Disabilities, vol 10, 1977.   van den Honert, D., correspondence, The New England Journal of Medicine, vol 317 #27, p 1738.m   van den Honert, D., Enhanced Lateralization as a Teaching Device, Dyslexia, vol 1, #2 p 126 1995.   von Plessen, Kirstin, et al, Less Developed Corpus Callosum in Dyslexic Subjects-- a Structural MRI Study, Neuropsychologia 40, (2002), 1035-1044.

Dyslexics and Visual Motion Problems

The latest issue of Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience includes a paper on the difficulties of dyslexics have with visual motion and how this relates to problems with reading.
“Developmental dyslexia is associated with deficits in the processing of visual motion stimuli, and some evidence suggests that these motion processing deficits are related to various reading subskills deficits. …. Results suggest that there are in fact two distinct motion processing deficits in developmental dyslexia, rather than one as assumed by previous research, and that each of these deficits is associated with a different type of reading subskills deficit. A deficit in detecting coherent motion is selectively associated with low accuracy on reading subskills tests, and a deficit in discriminating velocities is selectively associated with slow performance on these same tests. In addition, … The two distinct patterns of motion processing and reading deficits demonstrated by this study may reflect separable underlying neurocognitive mechanisms of developmental dyslexia.”