Are changes in the stomatognatic system able to modify the eye balance in dyslexia?

Mettey Alexandre, Bouvier Anne-Marie, Jooste Valérie, Boucher Yves, Quercia Patrick
Author Information
  1. Mettey Alexandre: UMR 1231, University Bourgogne Franche-Comté; University Hospital, F-21000 Dijon, France.
  2. Bouvier Anne-Marie: UMR 1231, University Bourgogne Franche-Comté; University Hospital, F-21000 Dijon, France.
  3. Jooste Valérie: UMR 1231, University Bourgogne Franche-Comté; University Hospital, F-21000 Dijon, France.
  4. Boucher Yves: Laboratoire de Neurobiologie Orofaciale, UFR Odontologie, Paris, Service d'Odontologie, University Hospital Pitié Salpêtrière, F- 75000 Paris, France.
  5. Quercia Patrick: INSERM U1093, University Bourgogne Franche-Comté, F-21000 Dijon, France.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To clarify the link between eye muscle function and oral information by comparing 21 dyslexic readers (DR) and 14 normal readers (NR).
METHODS: Changes in vertical heterophoria (VH) were measured using the Maddox Rod Test performed according to oral modifications and postural conditions. The Spearman correlation was used to assess whether reading delay was correlated with the lability index.
RESULTS: Overall, 50% of NR children and 81% of DR experienced at least one variation in visual perception (p = 0.053). Among DR, the less reading delay they had, the higher their index of lability (p = 0.026), whereas there was no significant correlation among NR. Changes in the Maddox Test were more frequent in DR than in NR after the addition of sensory and postural stimuli, except for one specific posture. For sensory stimuli, the mean lability index was 1.35 in NR and 4.19 in DR, (p = 0.001). For postural stimuli, it was 0.71 and 2.61, (p = 0.003).
CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to modify visual perception by changing sensory or mechanical stimuli. Changes are more frequent in DR than in NR. Postural control can be improved with guided oral stimulations.
SIGNIFICANCE: These results reinforce the importance of professional cooperation in the care of dyslexic readers.

Keywords

References

  1. Neurosci Lett. 2006 Aug 7;403(3):211-5 [PMID: 16797838]
  2. Neurosci Lett. 2006 Jan 9;392(1-2):140-4 [PMID: 16225992]
  3. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2018 Feb;183:19-28 [PMID: 29304447]
  4. Psychol Res. 1981;43(2):235-43 [PMID: 7302092]
  5. Cortex. 2012 Jul;48(7):882-7 [PMID: 21676385]
  6. J Fr Ophtalmol. 2005 Sep;28(7):713-23 [PMID: 16208221]
  7. Optom Vis Sci. 2006 Apr;83(4):237-41 [PMID: 16614580]
  8. Cognition. 1985 Oct;21(1):1-36 [PMID: 4075760]
  9. Neuroreport. 1996 Jun 17;7(9):1531-5 [PMID: 8856714]
  10. Neurosci Lett. 1990 Feb 5;109(1-2):48-53 [PMID: 1690368]
  11. Ann Neurol. 1996 Mar;39(3):407-12 [PMID: 8602765]
  12. J Neurosci. 2012 Jun 20;32(25):8569-73 [PMID: 22723697]
  13. J Neurol. 2007 Sep;254(9):1174-83 [PMID: 17676356]
  14. Dyslexia. 2015 Feb;21(1):35-49 [PMID: 25363804]
  15. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2003 Apr;13(2):212-8 [PMID: 12744976]
  16. Neurosci Lett. 2000 Nov 3;293(3):203-6 [PMID: 11036196]
  17. Exp Neurol. 1972 Oct;37(1):179-87 [PMID: 5077558]
  18. Front Integr Neurosci. 2014 Oct 30;8:85 [PMID: 25400559]
  19. Neurosci Lett. 2018 Apr 3;671:82-87 [PMID: 29444444]
  20. Physiol Rev. 2000 Jul;80(3):953-78 [PMID: 10893428]
  21. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2013 Sep-Dec;3(3):146-50 [PMID: 25737904]
  22. Clin Ophthalmol. 2015 Sep 25;9:1785-97 [PMID: 26445526]
  23. Neurophysiol Clin. 2008 Dec;38(6):391-8 [PMID: 19026959]
  24. Exp Brain Res. 2005 Dec;167(3):370-80 [PMID: 16044303]
  25. Neurosci Lett. 2004 Feb 19;356(3):228-30 [PMID: 15036636]
  26. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2015;11:283-307 [PMID: 25594880]
  27. Cranio. 2000 Apr;18(2):127-34 [PMID: 11202823]
  28. Biol Cybern. 1998 Aug;79(2):175-89 [PMID: 9791937]
  29. Neurosci Lett. 2009 Sep 22;462(2):125-9 [PMID: 19576954]
  30. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2009;64(1):61-6 [PMID: 19142553]
  31. J Neurophysiol. 2010 Oct;104(4):2257-65 [PMID: 20668275]
  32. Clin Neurophysiol. 2008 Oct;119(10):2314-20 [PMID: 18760665]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0DRNRp = 0sensorystimulioralreadersChangesposturallabilityindexeyedyslexicheterophoriaMaddoxTestcorrelationreadingdelayonevisualperceptionfrequentmodifyPosturalcontrolbalanceOBJECTIVES:clarifylinkmusclefunctioninformationcomparing2114normalMETHODS:verticalVHmeasuredusingRodperformedaccordingmodificationsconditionsSpearmanusedassesswhethercorrelatedRESULTS:Overall50%children81%experiencedleastvariation053Amonglesshigher026whereassignificantamongadditionexceptspecificposturemean135419001071261003CONCLUSIONS:possiblechangingmechanicalcanimprovedguidedstimulationsSIGNIFICANCE:resultsreinforceimportanceprofessionalcooperationcarechangesstomatognaticsystemabledyslexia?DentalocclusionDyslexiaEyeOralinnervationVertical

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.