Katarzyna Jednoróg|Artur Marchewka|Irène Altarelli|A. Lopez|Muna van Ermingen?Marbach|M. Grande|Anna Grabowska|Stefan Heim|Franck Ramus
How reliable are gray matter disruptions in specific reading disability across multiple countries and languages? insights from a large?scale voxel?based morphometry study
Instytut Biologii Do?wiadczalnej im. Marcelego Nenckiego|Instytut Biologii Do?wiadczalnej im. Marcelego Nenckiego|Laboratoire de Sciences Cognitives et Psycholinguistique|School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences|University of Geneva|Inserm|Cognitive Neuroimaging Lab|Atomic Energy and Alternative Energies Commission|University of Paris-Saclay|RWTH Aachen University|Universitätsklinikum Aachen|University of Social Sciences and Humanities|Instytut Biologii Do?wiadczalnej im. Marcelego Nenckiego|RWTH Aachen University|Forschungszentrum Jülich|Laboratoire de Sciences Cognitives et Psycholinguistique|School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences
neural basis specific reading disability srd remains partly understood dozen studies used voxelbased morphometry vbm investigate gray matter volume gmv differences srd control children however recent metaanalyses suggest regions consistent across studies used data collected across three countries france poland germany aim increasing sample size 236 srd controls obtain clearer picture group differences assessing consistency findings across languages vbm analysis reveals significant group difference single cluster left thalamus furthermore observe correlations reading accuracy gmv left supramarginal gyrus left cerebellum controls strikingly fail replicate group differences gmv reported previous studies despite superior statistical power main limitation study heterogeneity sample drawn different countries ie speaking languages varying orthographic transparencies selected based different assessment batteries nevertheless analyses within country support conclusions crosslinguistic analysis explanations discrepancy present previous studies may include 1 limited suitability vbm reveal subtle brain disruptions underlying srd 2 insufficient correction multiple statistical tests flexibility data analysis 3 publication bias favor positive results thus study echoes widespread concerns risk falsepositive results inherent smallscale vbm studies