Back

Phonemic awareness deficits in an alphasyllabary language: Effects of task type and linguistic complexity in children with Specific Learning Disorder-Reading

Soman, A.; Dev, S. S.; Ravindren, R.

2026-04-07 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.64898/2026.04.02.26349894 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background Phonemic awareness deficits are a core feature of Specific Learning Disorder-Reading (SLD-R). How task- and language-specific factors influence these deficits in alphasyllabary languages may help clarify the cognitive mechanisms underlying reading impairment in SLD-R. Methods Thirty children with a DSM-5 diagnosis of SLD-R (mean age 11.4 years) and 29 age-matched typically developing children were given phoneme blending (words and pseudowords) and segmentation tasks in Malayalam. The effects of age and consonant clusters on task performance were evaluated. Results Children with SLD-R performed significantly worse than controls across most phonemic awareness tasks, with the largest deficits observed in pseudoword blending and word blending, and smaller deficits in segmentation. No significant difference was observed for initial phoneme deletion. In typically developing children, age showed strong positive correlations with phonemic performance across most tasks, whereas the SLD-R group showed weak or absent correlations, except in word blending and initial phoneme deletion. Consonant clusters significantly affected performance in both groups, with SLD-R showing more severe deficits. Conclusions Phonemic awareness deficits observed in SLD-R in alphasyllabary languages like Malayalam are more prominent in tasks where lexical support is absent, like pseudoword blending. These deficits vary across task types and linguistic complexity. Phonemic awareness improves with age in typically developing children, while improvement is uneven in children with SLD-R. The findings suggest that phonemic awareness deficits are a core feature of SLD-R across languages, but their manifestation is shaped by orthographic and linguistic characteristics of the writing system.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 9%
18.9%
2
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
15.6%
3
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.4%
4
Developmental Science
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.7%
5
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 18%
5.3%
50% of probability mass above
6
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
235 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.9%
7
Cortex
119 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.7%
8
Neuropsychologia
85 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.4%
9
Epilepsy Research
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
10
Autism Research
39 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
11
Microbiology
65 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.5%
12
Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
13
Psychiatry Research
41 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.2%
14
Cerebral Cortex
396 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
15
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience
96 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.2%
16
The Cerebellum
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
17
Wellcome Open Research
67 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
18
BMC Psychiatry
25 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.1%
19
Ear & Hearing
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.0%
20
JCPP Advances
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
21
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.9%
22
NeuroImage
903 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
23
European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
24
Cureus
68 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
25
Brain and Behavior
43 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%