The response latencies in Table 1 show that dyslexic readers exhibited generally prolonged response latencies and were more negatively affected by item length (short vs. long) as evident from a reliable main effect of group, F 1, 31) = 5.41, p<.05, and a reliable length by group interaction, F 1, 31) = 26.74, p<.001.
Compared to the nonimpaired sample, our dyslexic readers exhibited generally prolonged response latencies and a stronger length effect on response latencies for both words and pseudowords.
Absence of this length effect is remarkable as the effect of pseudoword-length on response latencies was larger for dyslexic than for nonimpaired readers.
This latency increase was about three times the latency increase of the nonimpaired readers.
Data indicated that adult dyslexic readers had significantly slower reaction times and longer P300 latencies than control readers in most of the experimental tasks and delayed P200 latencies for the lexical decision task.
When fully functional left OT regions of dyslexic readers are engaged by slow serial letter string processing resulting in the mentioned latency pattern, one would expect increased activation and a stronger length effect on activation.
Such an effect could have been expected as dyslexic readers – different from nonimpaired readers – exhibited a strong word-length effect on response latencies.
Although humans are the natural host of HSV, many, but not all, aspects of pathogenesis and latency can be modelled in experimental animals (for a detailed consideration of this topic, the reader is referred to the following reviews; (Wagner & Bloom, 1997; Dasgupta & Benmohamed, 2011).
Average response latencies for the phonological lexical decision were prolonged by about 300 ms in dyslexic compared with nonimpaired readers.
Latency became his subject.
