Table 3

Phonological dyslexics with neuroanatomically described lesions

Original sourceSbjLesionProdWords Nonwords Letters
Bradley and Thompson (34)PMFFluent91%OK13%W77%0%
Caramazza et al. (35)LBFMild impOK100%93%71%N
Sasanuma et al. (36)TYFMild imp100%93%86%40%W82%
Denes et al. (37)MLF+PImp80%94%50%30%W100%8%
Bub et al. (38)MVF+PMild imp92%23%W93%
Patterson (32)AMF+P+TMild impOK≈95%83%≈15%W
Friedman (39)MSF+TFluentOK85%15%W100%
Friedman and Kohn (40)HRP+TFluent68%87%87%7%N
Friedman (39)BRP+TFluent100%98%87%61%W?100%
Bisiacchi et al. (41)RRP+TFluent98%97%100%63%N100%100%
Beauvois and Derousense (33)RGP+T+OFluent100%100%83%26%87%
Cuetos et al. (42)ADP+OFluent100%93%100%35%N95%
Derouesne and Beauvois (43)JATFluent100%100%53%
Caramazza et al. (35)AGTFluent98%69%N
  • For each case report (listed by original source and subject initials), the location of the lesion is described (F, frontal; P, parietal; T, temporal; and O, occipital; with the exception of left-handed subject AM, all lesions were in the left hemisphere), along with the speech production (Prod) characteristics of the subject [fluent, mildly impaired (mild imp), or impaired (imp)]. Word repetition (rep) and reading (read) accuracy is listed, followed by nonword repetition and reading accuracy, along with a notation of whether the subject’s nonword reading errors (err) were predominantly real words (W) or nonwords (N). Finally, accuracy at reading (read) and sounding out (sound) individual letters is listed. Blank cells indicate that the relevant data were not available in the original