% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Peyre:873603,
author = {Peyre, Hugo and Mohanpuria, Neha and Jednoróg, Katarzyna
and Heim, Stefan and Grande, Marion and van
Ermingen-Marbach, Muna and Altarelli, Irene and Monzalvo,
Karla and Williams, Camille and Germanaud, David and Toro,
Roberto and Ramus, Franck},
title = {{N}euroanatomy of dyslexia: {A}n allometric approach},
journal = {European journal of neuroscience},
volume = {52},
number = {6},
issn = {1460-9568},
address = {Oxford [u.a.]},
publisher = {Blackwell},
reportid = {FZJ-2020-00846},
pages = {3595-3609},
year = {2020},
abstract = {Despite evidence for a difference in total brain volume
between dyslexic and good readers, no previous neuroimaging
study examined differences in allometric scaling (i.e.
differences in the relationship between regional and total
brain volumes) between dyslexic and good readers. The
present study aims to fill this gap by testing differences
in allometric scaling and lobar brain volume differences in
dyslexic and good readers. Object-based morphometry analysis
was used to determine grey and white matter volumes of the 4
lobes, the cerebellum, and limbic structures in 130 dyslexic
and 106 good readers aged 8 to 14 years. Data were collected
across three countries (France, Poland, and Germany). Three
methodological approaches were used: Principal Components
Analysis (PCA), linear regression, and Multiple Group
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA). Difference in total
brain volume between good and dyslexic readers was Cohen's
d=0.39. We found no difference in allometric scaling, nor in
regional brain volume between dyslexic and good readers.
Results of our three methodological approaches (PCA, linear
regression and MGCFA) were consistent. This study provides
evidence for total brain volume differences between dyslexic
and control children, but no evidence for differences in the
volumes of the four lobes, the cerebellum or limbic
structures, once allometry is properly taken into account.
It also finds no evidence for a difference in allometric
relationships between the groups. We highlight the
methodological interest of the MGCFA approach to investigate
such research issues.},
cin = {INM-1},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-1-20090406},
pnm = {571 - Connectivity and Activity (POF3-571)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-571},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:31991019},
UT = {WOS:000513510900001},
doi = {10.1111/ejn.14690},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/873603},
}