View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Learning to Read and Developmental Dyslexia in Hebrew

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Learning to Read and Developmental Dyslexia in Hebrew
Language: English
Authors: Adi Shechter, David L. Share
Source: Reading Research Quarterly. 2025 60(1).
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Descriptive
Descriptors: Dyslexia, Hebrew, Reading Instruction, Comorbidity, Reading Writing Relationship, Learning Disabilities, Neurological Organization, Language Acquisition
DOI: 10.1002/rrq.599
ISSN: 0034-0553
1936-2722
Abstract: The study of Hebrew, a non-European language written in a non-alphabetic (abjadic) script offers valuable insights into the science of reading beyond the well-studied alphabetic scripts. Because reading development in Hebrew is shaped by the uniquely Semitic root-and-pattern morphology and the abjadic (predominantly consonantal) orthography, our review begins by providing some basic information about the Hebrew language and its writing system. We then outline the developmental phases through which the developing Hebrew reader progresses, as proposed in Share and Bar-On's Triplex Model, and the central role of phonological and morphological awareness. Finally, we review the research literature on developmental dyslexia in Hebrew within the context of current theories on the underlying perceptual/neurobiological basis of dyslexia (e.g., temporal processing, magnocellular deficits, visual attention span etc.). Here, we draw attention to the problems of comorbidity and the need to go beyond the conventional "whole-group" approach and address the issue of heterogeneity and subtypes.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1458530
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwENS4Pv7dryyCvC-3BXseWRAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDJHCJRN1wHJqEoNAHgIBEICBmv20Q1_Tw8-z7U5VKfzKqDMsUNveWwuHAR9vojkLeG1Faof4_lcKPlapHS8kfF2iGkqwXcax7Yr-fJ1-jNXLwp7qaECvkkSXm6pcIJkGO3eJLC2UgtNGWndN-c5ATeYNO7BjswL_RbNr-v6MFOxnS42QViu5JY5TaIu1cPRneIiY8EHV8VSkoeQBUlVtLyEVP173pNoacxVaM38=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0183756699;[nrnu]01jan.25;2025Apr04.08:23;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0183756699-1">Learning to Read and Developmental Dyslexia in Hebrew </title> <sbt id="AN0183756699-2">Introduction</sbt> <p>The study of Hebrew, a non‐European language written in a non‐alphabetic (abjadic) script offers valuable insights into the science of reading beyond the well‐studied alphabetic scripts. Because reading development in Hebrew is shaped by the uniquely Semitic root‐and‐pattern morphology and the abjadic (predominantly consonantal) orthography, our review begins by providing some basic information about the Hebrew language and its writing system. We then outline the developmental phases through which the developing Hebrew reader progresses, as proposed in Share and Bar‐On's Triplex Model, and the central role of phonological and morphological awareness. Finally, we review the research literature on developmental dyslexia in Hebrew within the context of current theories on the underlying perceptual/neurobiological basis of dyslexia (e.g., temporal processing, magnocellular deficits, visual attention span etc.). Here, we draw attention to the problems of comorbidity and the need to go beyond the conventional "whole‐group" approach and address the issue of heterogeneity and subtypes.</p> <p>The study of Hebrew, a non‐European language written in a non‐alphabetic (abjadic) script offers valuable insights into the science of reading beyond the well‐studied alphabetic scripts. Because reading development in Hebrew is shaped by the uniquely Semitic root‐and‐pattern morphology and the abjadic (predominantly consonantal) orthography, our review begins by providing some basic information about the Hebrew language and its writing system.</p> <p>To understand the universal and the unique features of learning to read across languages and writing systems, it is essential to consider the full spectrum of linguistic and orthographic diversity around the globe (Blasi et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref1">28</reflink>]; Huettig & Ferreira, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref2">73</reflink>]; Perfetti & Harris, [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref3">106</reflink>]; Share, [<reflink idref="bib137" id="ref4">137</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref5">139</reflink>]; Verhoeven et al., [<reflink idref="bib169" id="ref6">169</reflink>]). As a non‐European language written in a non‐alphabetic script, the study of Hebrew reading acquisition offers valuable insights into the science of reading (Share & Bar‐On, [<reflink idref="bib140" id="ref7">140</reflink>]).</p> <p>Hebrew is a Semitic language written in an abjad or consonantal writing system and read from right to left.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref8">1</reflink>] Used continuously since biblical times, Hebrew, today, is the official language of the modern State of Israel, spoken by around 10 million native speakers around the globe. While it does not hold the status of a major world language, Semitic languages, including Hebrew and Arabic, are spoken by hundreds of millions of people (Eberhard et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref9">50</reflink>]). Moreover, the consonantal scripts (abjads), first developed by Semitic speakers (Daniels & Bright, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref10">46</reflink>]; Diringer, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref11">49</reflink>]), are the common ancestors of writing systems (abjads, alphabets, and abugidas/alphasyllabaries) used today by billions (Diringer, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref12">49</reflink>]).</p> <p>Understanding the uniquely Semitic aspects of Hebrew language and orthography is crucial for exploring reading acquisition and difficulties in this language which differs markedly from the family of European languages and alphabets that have dominated reading research until recently. We therefore begin by surveying the key features of spoken and written Hebrew.</p> <hd id="AN0183756699-3">The Hebrew Language</hd> <p>Modern Hebrew (<emph>Ivrit</emph>) contains 5 vowels, 3 diphthongs, and 19 consonantal phonemes. Although it features a variety of syllable types (Bolozky, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref13">29</reflink>]), the most common syllable is a consonant followed by a vowel—the CV or <emph>core syllable</emph> referred to in (written) Hebrew as the <emph>tseruf</emph> (Tadmor‐Troyansky & Share, [<reflink idref="bib157" id="ref14">157</reflink>]). Most words consist of two or three syllables with only a few monosyllabic words.</p> <p>Hebrew is a heavily inflected synthetic (S)VO language with a rich inflectional morphology (Share et al., [<reflink idref="bib143" id="ref15">143</reflink>]). As a result, word order in Hebrew is relatively free (Frankel et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref16">56</reflink>]). Word formation can be classified into both non‐linear processes (root‐and‐pattern) and linear (concatenative) processes, in addition to an increasing number of direct borrowings from other languages (Berman, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref17">25</reflink>]; Ravid, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref18">109</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref19">115</reflink>]).</p> <p>As a Semitic language, the core of Hebrew word formation lies in its root‐and‐pattern structure (McCarthy, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref20">96</reflink>]). Many words, especially content words, are polymorphemic, consisting of a combination of a tri‐consonantal root (e.g.,ג.ד.ר G, D, R) and a vowel pattern. Consonantal roots convey core meanings and are made salient in the orthography as continuous strings of three (sometimes four) consonantal letters. The pattern conveys both semantic and grammatical information and is represented in the orthography as a non‐continuous string of vowels and affixed consonants. When inserted into a morphophonemic pattern, an initially unpronounceable consonantal skeleton becomes a pronounceable word (e.g., GaDeR גָּדֵר "fence"). This root‐and‐pattern infrastructure requires considerable morphemic decomposition. In contrast to English, in which semantically related words often have distinct lexemes (e.g., "play" and "game"; "writing" and "an article"), Hebrew uses derivational devices applied to its roots (e.g., leSaXeK "to play," miSXaK "game"; KTiVa "writing," KaTaVa "an article"). Since the number of tri‐consonantal roots is limited, many words, both verbs and nouns, share the same root morpheme. For example, the verbs GiDeR ("he fenced") and GuDaR ("was fenced"), and the noun GaDeR ("fence") all derive from the same tri‐consonantal root גדר GDR. However, this root also generates the verbs hiGDiR ("he defined") and huGDar ("was defined") and the nouns haGDaRa ("definition") and miGDaR ("gender"). This example illustrates the productivity of the Hebrew root, demonstrating the semantic versatility that is manifested by combining a single root with different patterns. Verbs are always formed by a non‐linear combination of a root and a verbal pattern (Ashkenazi et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref21">9</reflink>]). There are seven verbal patterns or conjugations (<emph>binyanim</emph>), each conveying a specific aspect such as transitivity, reciprocity, reflexivity, causativity, and inchoateness (Share, [<reflink idref="bib138" id="ref22">138</reflink>]). In contrast to the small number of verbal patterns, there are over 100 nominal patterns, some of them clearly signaling semantic categories (e.g., CaCaC for professions; CaCoC for colors; CaCeCet for diseases), but most are unpredictable. Interestingly, while borrowed verbs must be adapted to one of the seven verbal patterns in Hebrew, nouns can be borrowed in their original form (Hoberman & Aronoff, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref23">71</reflink>]).</p> <p>In contrast to the early English lexicon, most Hebrew words are morphologically complex (Vaknin‐Nusbaum, [<reflink idref="bib163" id="ref24">163</reflink>]). Their multimorphemic structure requires the speaker's attention to word‐internal structure from a very early phase of development (Ravid, [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref25">113</reflink>]). Number and gender inflections, for example, are already marked by age two (Berman, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref26">26</reflink>]; Levy, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref27">90</reflink>]; Ravid, [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref28">110</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref29">112</reflink>]). Furthermore, in many cases, a Hebrew word can convey both morphological and syntactic information. Such examples are common and are derived by inflecting roots that convey person, number, and tense (e.g., SaFaRti; "ספרתי," "I counted," first person, singular, past tense), and other grammatical features, as well as clitics that indicate function words (e.g., "to," "from," "the") and possessives (e.g., "my" and "his"). For example, the word <bold>לְ</bold>בֵית<bold>וֹ</bold> (/leˈvei.to/), translates into three English words—"to his house."</p> <p>To sum up, Hebrew is characterized by rich inflectional primarily root‐and‐pattern non‐linear morphology resulting in a uniquely poly‐morphemic lexicon, even in the case of basic words. In the following section we focus on the Hebrew writing system and the interface between the spoken Semitic language and its consonantal writing system.</p> <hd id="AN0183756699-4">The Hebrew Writing System</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183756699-5">Historical Background at a Glance</hd> <p>Around the 11th or 12th century BCE, the Phoenician script was adopted by the Hebrews. In the oldest inscriptions, the Semitic script consisted of 22 symbols. These letters only represented consonants (Daniels, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref30">44</reflink>]). Between the 10th and the 9th centuries BCE, vowel letters (i.e., AHVY אהוי letters) were added to this vowelless script (Bendavid, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref31">17</reflink>]). Much later, around 600 CE, a full set of vowel signs was developed in the form of diacritical marks or "points"  (<emph>nikud</emph>) appearing above, below, or within the letters (Yeivin & Revell, [<reflink idref="bib177" id="ref32">177</reflink>]).</p> <p>The evolution of Hebrew throughout history as a written language has been significantly intertwined with its status as a spoken language. Even when Hebrew ceased to be a spoken language, its written form was consistently used for liturgical, religious, cultural, scholarly, and scientific purposes (Schwarzwald, [<reflink idref="bib127" id="ref33">127</reflink>]). During that period, the pointed script was used, providing high decipherability, thereby enabling accurate pronunciation for nonnative speakers. However, in the late 19th century, coinciding with the revival of Hebrew as a spoken language, the new native speakers readopted the unpointed script for both reading and writing purposes (Share & Bar‐On, [<reflink idref="bib140" id="ref34">140</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183756699-6">Modern Hebrew Orthography</hd> <p>Despite numerous opportunities to become an alphabetic writing system, Hebrew has survived in its original consonantal architecture. That is, consonants are fully represented by letters arranged linearly from right to left. In contrast to alphabetic writing systems in which both consonants and vowels have full and equal representation, Hebrew vowels are subordinate to consonants; either they are omitted or have secondary status (Share, [<reflink idref="bib138" id="ref35">138</reflink>]; Shimron, [<reflink idref="bib150" id="ref36">150</reflink>]).</p> <p>Modern Hebrew (Ivrit) has two versions: a pointed (fully vowelled) script and an unpointed (i.e., partly vowelled) script (Ravid, [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref37">114</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref38">115</reflink>]). The pointed script is primarily used during the early stages of reading acquisition (Shany et al., [<reflink idref="bib133" id="ref39">133</reflink>]), and in poetry and liturgical texts among adult skilled readers (Shimron, [<reflink idref="bib151" id="ref40">151</reflink>]). For the developing reader, the transition to the unpointed script typically occurs around the third grade, at which time Hebrew readers use the unpointed script as their default version through the reading life span (Shany et al., [<reflink idref="bib133" id="ref41">133</reflink>]).</p> <p>Both pointed and unpointed scripts consist of 22 consonantal letters, with four letters—AHVY אהוי, representing both consonants and vowels. In the pointed script, diacritical marks primarily indicate vowels, but a diacritic dot can also denote consonantal variants. Positioned inside the letters בכפ (b/v, k/x, p/f), the dot (<emph>dagesh</emph>) distinguishes stop‐spirant alternations. When placed above the upper left side of the letter ש, the dot distinguishes between š and s. The absence of these points in the unpointed script increases phonological ambiguity and creates endemic homography (e.g., ספר "he counts" vs. ספּר for "hairdresser"; שׁם for "there" vs. שׂם for "he put") (Share & Bar‐On, [<reflink idref="bib140" id="ref42">140</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183756699-7">Pointed Hebrew</hd> <p>Beginning readers are taught to read in pointed Hebrew, a near perfectly regular or transparent orthography in which each letter and vowel sign corresponds to a single phoneme (Bar‐On & Ravid, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref43">15</reflink>]; Share & Bar‐On, [<reflink idref="bib140" id="ref44">140</reflink>]). This phonological transparency affords a high degree of decipherability (Share, [<reflink idref="bib137" id="ref45">137</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib138" id="ref46">138</reflink>], this volume), accounting for the rapid mastery of decoding by the end of first grade (Shatil & Share, [<reflink idref="bib144" id="ref47">144</reflink>]). Despite the one‐symbol‐one‐sound transparency, the CV unit ("core syllable") is a common unit of instruction (Kogan & Saiegh‐Haddad, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref48">82</reflink>]; Mizrachi, [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref49">99</reflink>]). For example, the word "dog," "KeLeV," "כלב" would typically be taught in three units: Ke‐Le‐V כֶּ‐לֶ‐ב. In many first grade classrooms, novice readers are taught integral CV units consisting of a consonant and a vowel sign appended below the consonant letter (Tadmor‐Troyansky & Share, [<reflink idref="bib157" id="ref50">157</reflink>]; Abu Ahmad & Share, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref51">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although highly regular, the pointed script contains a considerable amount of redundancy stemming from historical neutralizations associated with the transition from Classical Hebrew to Modern Hebrew. This redundancy is evident in both the vowels and consonants of the modern pointed script. For example, long and short vowel signs persist in the modern pointed script, even though they are no longer phonemically contrastive. Consequently, each of the five cardinal vowels /a, e, i, o, u/ has between two and four vowel signs (Ravid, [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref52">114</reflink>]; Share & Bar‐On, [<reflink idref="bib140" id="ref53">140</reflink>]). Homophonic letters are an additional source of redundancy. Of the 19 consonantal phonemes in Modern Hebrew, six are represented by at least two letters. Since most Hebrew words contain one or more of these consonants, this polygraphy poses a unique challenge for the developing speller (Ravid, [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref54">115</reflink>]; Share, [<reflink idref="bib138" id="ref55">138</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183756699-8">Unpointed Hebrew and the Problem of Homography</hd> <p>The unpointed script—the standard version in printed material for skilled readers, is, as already noted, characterized by under‐representation of vowels. As a result, almost every unpointed word can be read in multiple ways, including both lexical and non‐lexical pronunciations (Bar‐On & Ravid, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref56">15</reflink>]). For example, the letter string MSPR מספר is compatible with no less than 24 possible pronunciations, five of them lexical (i.e., <emph>mispar</emph> number; <emph>mesaper</emph> telling; <emph>misper</emph> numbered; <emph>mi‐sefer</emph> from [a] book; <emph>mi‐sapar</emph> from [a] hairdresser). Hence, when reading unpointed script, the reader is confronted with extensive homography. Here, the skilled reader must rely on supra‐lexical contextual information to establish the specific meaning intended (Bar‐On, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref57">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>Summing up, learning to read Hebrew poses unique challenges, yet the quasi‐biscriptal Hebrew orthography appears to provide an ideal solution: While the pointed script provides phonological transparency, supplying the decipherability needed for the novice reader who is continually encountering novel words, the unpointed script (like the pointed script) highlights morphemic transparency, thereby promoting the unitizability required by the skilled reader for rapid effortless word recognition (Share, [<reflink idref="bib137" id="ref58">137</reflink>], this volume, Share & Bar‐On, [<reflink idref="bib140" id="ref59">140</reflink>]). However, unlike the pointed script, unpointed Hebrew requires the reader to rely more on lexical and morphological information owing to the under‐representation of phonological information.</p> <hd id="AN0183756699-9">Hebrew Reading Acquisition</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183756699-10">The Relationship between Phonological Awareness and Hebrew Reading Acquisition</hd> <p>The developmental nature of phonological awareness (PA) has been shown to vary across languages and writing systems (Perfetti & Harris, [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref60">106</reflink>]; Tolchinsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib159" id="ref61">159</reflink>]; Verhoeven & Perfetti, [<reflink idref="bib170" id="ref62">170</reflink>]). Nonetheless, as in English and other Western European alphabetic scripts, the study of PA in Hebrew has confirmed that the awareness of sub‐lexical phonological units among preschool children predicts reading performance and, when trained, leads to significant and durable gains in later reading performance (Bar‐Kochva & Nevo, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref63">13</reflink>]; Bentin & Leshem, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref64">22</reflink>]; Kozminsky & Kozminsky, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref65">83</reflink>]; Lapidot et al., [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref66">86</reflink>]; Shatil & Share, [<reflink idref="bib144" id="ref67">144</reflink>]; Nevo & Breznitz, [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref68">102</reflink>], see Share & Levin, [<reflink idref="bib142" id="ref69">142</reflink>]; Share, [<reflink idref="bib138" id="ref70">138</reflink>] for reviews). Consequently, over the past two decades, the Israeli Ministry of Education has embraced this conclusion, integrating it into the national curriculum for both preschool and grade school (Share, [<reflink idref="bib138" id="ref71">138</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, in an effort to maximize the predictive power of PA, many of these investigations have often combined multiple phonological units into a single composite measure, thereby obscuring the question of unit size (phonemes, sub‐syllabic CV units etc.) crucial to both teaching and assessment.</p> <p>A recent study, conducted by Tadmor‐Troyansky and Share ([<reflink idref="bib157" id="ref72">157</reflink>]), addressed the question of <emph>which</emph> phonological units are the important ones in Hebrew. In a combination longitudinal and cross‐sectional study covering Hebrew‐speaking children from pre‐kindergarten to Grade 4, Tadmor‐Troyansky and Share found that children perceive the CV unit (core syllable) as an integral unit and struggle to break it into separate consonants and vowels. This finding, observed among both pre‐literate and literate children, replicated previous studies showing that, in contrast to English, Hebrew speakers, from preschoolers to adults, find the CV unit more accessible compared to isolated phonemes (Ben‐Dror, Bentin, & Frost, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref73">18</reflink>]; Bentin et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref74">21</reflink>]; Share & Blum, [<reflink idref="bib141" id="ref75">141</reflink>]). However, in a previous study, Share and Blum ([<reflink idref="bib141" id="ref76">141</reflink>]) concluded that the CV unit preference can be interpreted as the syllable "body," the syllable‐initial consonant or consonant cluster plus the following vowel. In contrast, Tadmor‐Troyansky and Share ([<reflink idref="bib157" id="ref77">157</reflink>]) found that single consonants <emph>preceding</emph> the CV (as in <bold>C</bold>CV syllables) or <emph>following</emph> the CV (as in CV<bold>C</bold> syllables) were relatively easy to isolate unlike phonemes <emph>within</emph> the cohesive CV unit, regardless of whether they were consonants or vowels. Furthermore, word‐initial vowels such as the /a/ in אדם /adam/ "man," were perceived as complete CV syllables (specifically /ʔa/), not, as in English, as isolated vowels. This indicates that all vowels constitute "intra‐core" units and hence difficult to extract. Tadmor‐Troyansky and Share also found significant predictive correlations between Kindergarten awareness of <emph>intra</emph>‐core phonemes (both consonants and vowels) and Grade 2 reading but not the more easily extracted CV units and extra‐core consonants. Reinforcing the distinction between intra‐core and extra‐core phonological units, intra‐core consonant isolation but not extra‐core consonant isolation was correlated with Grade 2 reading. This distinction between "intra‐core" and "extra‐core" phonemes suggests that phonological awareness in Hebrew comprises two grain sizes—core (CV) units and single (extra‐core) consonants, but not single vowels.</p> <p>Tadmor‐Troyansky and Share ([<reflink idref="bib157" id="ref78">157</reflink>]) also examined the impact of the teaching of English as a second language during the elementary school years on the development of phonological awareness among these children with special attention to vowel awareness, given the differences between the Hebrew abjad and the English alphabet in their representation of vowel phonemes. As anticipated, full phoneme‐based segmentation into consonants and vowels was found to be very rare even among fourth graders. This confirmed findings from a study by Ben‐Dror, Frost, and Bentin ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref79">19</reflink>]) who reported that skilled adult Hebrew readers tend to identify the first "sound" in spoken words as a CV unit whereas English speakers identified singleton phonemes. These data reinforce the idea of a natural CV core unit among Hebrew speakers, one that makes the isolation of the vowel phoneme (which in Hebrew is always embedded in a CV unit) extremely difficult and probably unnecessary for learning to read given the systematicity and teachability of the CV unit.</p> <p>Tadmor‐Troyansky and Share's study also challenges the large‐to‐small phonological unit size idea (see Anthony et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref80">8</reflink>]). This notion posits a developmental progression from large units to smaller units, from whole syllables to sub‐syllabic onsets and rimes and eventually phonemes. This conception does not align well with the characteristics of Hebrew for several reasons. First, the onset/rime subdivision appears to be irrelevant to the Hebrew abjad (Tadmor‐Troyansky & Share, [<reflink idref="bib157" id="ref81">157</reflink>]; Bentin, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref82">20</reflink>]; Share & Blum, [<reflink idref="bib141" id="ref83">141</reflink>]). Furthermore, the awareness of consonantal phonemes seems to precede onset awareness (in which multiple consonants precede the vowel nucleus) such that even kindergarten children are readily able to isolate individual consonants when they are located in an extra‐core position (e.g., the first consonant in an initial cluster—CCVC). Additionally, the implicit Anglophone conceptualization of the phoneme in which both consonants and vowels are treated as equivalent in status (as in all Roman script languages) differs markedly from the subsidiary status of vowel awareness in Hebrew which either develops relatively late or not at all (e.g., Lapidot et al., [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref84">86</reflink>]; Levin et al., [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref85">89</reflink>]; Tolchinsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib159" id="ref86">159</reflink>]; Tolchinsky‐Landsmann & Levin, [<reflink idref="bib160" id="ref87">160</reflink>]).</p> <p>In addition to these considerations, the question of timing has also been discussed. Bentin and Leshem ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref88">22</reflink>]) found a strong relationship between reading acquisition and PA in the <emph>middle</emph> of first grade, when Hebrew readers are still acquiring the basic spelling‐sound mappings but a weak relationship at the end of the first grade. This, and other findings, led Share ([<reflink idref="bib137" id="ref89">137</reflink>]) to propose the <emph>functional opacity hypothesis</emph>, which portrays a U‐shaped relationship between PA and reading influenced by the orthography's decoding ambiguity. In Hebrew, the PA‐reading correlation is strong at the beginning of reading acquisition when decoding ambiguity is high before declining by the end of the first grade when readers master spelling‐sound correspondences. In the second grade and beyond, it increases again simultaneously with the declining knowledge of vowel diacritics among Hebrew readers (Cohen‐Mimran, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref90">39</reflink>]; Shany et al., [<reflink idref="bib133" id="ref91">133</reflink>]; Shechter et al., [<reflink idref="bib148" id="ref92">148</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although the functional opacity hypothesis addresses the relationship between PA and reading accuracy, several studies have found that this explanation also applies to word reading fluency and spelling. For example, in Shechter et al. ([<reflink idref="bib148" id="ref93">148</reflink>]), PA was identified as a predictor of word reading fluency among third graders but not among first graders. Similarly, Katzir et al. ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref94">79</reflink>]) and Bar‐Kochva and Breznitz ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref95">12</reflink>]) observed PA to be a significant predictor of word reading fluency in both pointed and unpointed scripts among fourth graders. The same result was reported by Cohen‐Mimran ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref96">39</reflink>]) in a sample of fifth graders. Recently Shalhoub‐Awwad and Cohen‐Mimran ([<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref97">131</reflink>]) extended the functional opacity hypothesis to spelling in their comparison of the PA‐spelling relationship in Hebrew and Arabic. A significant PA‐spelling correlation was found in Hebrew (which, as already noted, has numerous one‐to‐many (consonant) phoneme‐to‐letter mappings) but not in Arabic in which each phoneme has only a single graphic representation. This pattern of findings in Hebrew is consistent with Share's opacity hypothesis that the strong and age‐invariant correlations between PA and reading (accuracy) in English stems from the endemic phonological opacity that creates decoding ambiguity at every age and ability level.</p> <p>In summary, the research on Hebrew phonological awareness and its development underscores the centrality of CV units alongside consonantal phonemes as the key phonological and orthographic units among Hebrew speakers, thereby emphasizing the reciprocity between the spoken and the written language. The Hebrew PA literature also challenges some universal notions, such as the large‐to‐small phonological unit size progression and the implicit ("alphabetocentric", see Share, [<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref98">139</reflink>]) assumption that the importance of phonemic awareness applies equally to consonants and vowels, but also affirms the essential and universal role of phonological awareness in early reading acquisition.</p> <hd id="AN0183756699-11">The Relationship between Morphological Awareness and Hebrew Reading Acquisition</hd> <p>The association between morphological skills and reading performance has been a perennial subject of interest among Israeli scholars, in accordance with the recognized centrality of morphology in the spoken language (Berman, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref99">25</reflink>]; Ravid, [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref100">113</reflink>]). This work has yielded a robust body of scientific knowledge regarding the unique contribution of morphological awareness to reading in Hebrew. This holds true across various linguistic contexts, including pointed and unpointed scripts, silent and oral reading modes, and across a wide range of age groups encompassing school‐age and adult samples.</p> <p>In line with Share and Bar‐On's ([<reflink idref="bib140" id="ref101">140</reflink>]) Triplex model of reading acquisition (see below), several studies have focused on the interplay between phonology and morphology in reading acquisition in Hebrew. While Gur ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref102">68</reflink>]) found that morphological skills (both implicit and explicit measures) contributed to reading only from Grade 2, Cohen‐Mimran et al. ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref103">40</reflink>]) reported that pre‐literate morphological skills in kindergarten accounted for a small but statistically significant 2% of the variance in predicting word reading accuracy and fluency in the middle of the first grade, after controlling for background factors and phonological awareness. Cohen‐Mimran and Share (submitted) also found that in mid‐to‐late first grade (when children are still learning the written code), phonological awareness explained 17% of the variance in reading fluency, while morpho‐lexical knowledge explained only 2% of the variance, again, after controlling for background factors and phonological awareness. By fourth grade, morpho‐lexical knowledge explained 9% of the variance in reading fluency in the unpointed script, simultaneously with a dramatic decline in the contribution of phonological awareness (3%).</p> <p>A similar picture emerged from a study by Yinon and Shaul ([<reflink idref="bib178" id="ref104">178</reflink>]) who examined the distinct roles of phonological and morphological information among second and fourth graders using three types of pseudoword reading tasks (pointed nonwords without morphological patterns, pointed morphologically based pseudowords, and unpointed morphologically based pseudowords). Regression analysis of accuracy and fluency in each grade revealed a significant contribution of morphological processing beyond that of phonological processing. The authors concluded that morphology plays a more crucial role than phonology in word reading as early as second grade, with this trend becoming even more pronounced by fourth grade. Consistent with this conclusion, Shechter et al. ([<reflink idref="bib148" id="ref105">148</reflink>]) found that morphological skills were a significant predictor of word reading fluency in third grade (but not in first grade), and other studies have also found significant morphology‐reading correlations in the upper elementary years; Grade 3 (Bar‐Kochva & Breznitz, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref106">12</reflink>]; Canaan & Share, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref107">35</reflink>]), Grade 4 (Bar‐Kochva & Breznitz, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref108">12</reflink>]), and Grade 5 (Cohen‐Mimran, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref109">39</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref110">2</reflink>] These results suggest that, as in many languages (see Share, this volume), the role of morphology and morphological awareness increases over time.</p> <p>Several studies in this field of inquiry have now focused on multiple aspects of morphology and their relation to reading. For example, Vaknin‐Nusbaum et al. ([<reflink idref="bib166" id="ref111">166</reflink>]) explored the relationship between morphological skills and word recognition among second (<emph>n</emph> = 67) and fifth (<emph>n</emph> = 86) graders. In her study, morphological measures included tests of inflection, derivation and construct formation, and word reading ability was tested by a timed word identification task in which participants were asked to circle names of animals from a given word list. The results showed that in both grades, all three types of morphological skills were associated with word recognition. Furthermore, children with low scores in derivation and construct formation had particularly low performance in word identification.</p> <p>In a subsequent study, Vaknin‐Nusbaum and Sarid ([<reflink idref="bib165" id="ref112">165</reflink>]) replicated the association between word recognition and inflections (plural inflections and possessive inflections) and derivations, observing moderate relationships in a relatively large sample of Hebrew‐speaking second graders (<emph>n</emph> = 595) at the beginning and the end of the school year. Based on these two time points, they divided the sample into three groups according to the readers' derivational awareness (DA) performance: low‐DA readers, improved‐DA readers, and high‐DA readers. Results showed that low‐DA readers and improved‐DA readers improved their word recognition more than high‐DA readers throughout the school year. When looking at the morphological skills measurements, improved‐DA readers showed more improvement than low‐ and high‐DA readers in both plural inflections and derivational awareness, while in possessive inflections, low‐ and improved‐DA readers showed similar improvement, which was higher than that of the high‐DA readers. Taken together, it appears that readers with different derivational awareness profiles exhibit varying improvements in word recognition and morphological skills.</p> <p>Schiff ([<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref113">116</reflink>]) focused on two morphological structures—feminine nominal derivations and feminine nominal inflections—and their influence on word reading among children in second (<emph>n</emph> = 50), fourth (<emph>n</emph> = 50), and sixth (<emph>n</emph> = 50) grades. Participants were asked to read aloud a word as fast as possible. A main effect for morphological word structure was found in both speed and accuracy such that inflections were pronounced more slowly and less accurately than derivations.</p> <p>Haddad et al. ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref114">69</reflink>]) examined the interaction between morphological segmentation (mono‐morphemic vs. bi‐morphemic words) and orthographic transparency (pointed vs. unpointed script) among second and fifth graders using a pronunciation task. In the two age groups similar patterns were found: in the pointed script, higher accuracy was observed for reading aloud bi‐morphemic words compared to mono‐morphemic words. However, the opposite trend was obtained in unpointed script such that lower accuracy was obtained for bi‐morphemic words compared to mono‐morphemic words, especially among second graders. Reaction time analyses for correct responses revealed that no differences were obtained in fifth grade, but in second grade, faster reading was observed for pointed compared to unpointed words, and for mono‐morphemic words compared to bi‐morphemic words. Based on these results, the authors concluded that second graders already use their morphological segmentation skills in reading derived words, and this has a greater impact on their reading compared to fifth graders. The comparison between pointed and unpointed scripts revealed that morphological structure facilitates word pronunciation in pointed script which fully maps both consonants and vowels. In contrast, in the case of the unpointed script, the morphemic pattern and the root provide ambiguous information, thereby inhibiting word recognition.</p> <p>Bar‐On and Ravid ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref115">15</reflink>]) mapped developmental trajectories in word recognition efficiency in unpointed Hebrew in a cross‐sectional sample of students from 2nd (beginning and end), 3rd, 4th, 7th, and 11th grades, and a group of adults. The findings revealed a significant "watershed" period in the second grade, where, by the end of this grade, readers have crossed a threshold in their ability to use morpho(phono)logical pattern cues to fill in the missing phonological information. However, a more gradual and incremental pattern was observed for the ability to deal with Hebrew homography by selecting the syntactically appropriate morphological pattern.</p> <p>Several intervention studies have now been undertaken to assess whether morphological training promotes reading performance. For example, Vaknin‐Nusbaum and Raveh ([<reflink idref="bib164" id="ref116">164</reflink>])'s intervention study focused on improving morphological skills among fifth‐grade Hebrew‐speaking poor readers. The procedure included twenty‐four 45‐min sessions, held twice a week over a period of 12 weeks. The material covered the identification, decomposition, and construction of written morphologically complex words, as well as the implicit learning of a variety of morphemes, including affixes, roots, and patterns. The intervention group was compared to a control group matched on morphological skills and reading scores. The intervention group outperformed the control group on all morphological measures and demonstrated a clear advantage over controls in text reading accuracy.</p> <p>In a follow‐up study, Vaknin‐Nusbaum ([<reflink idref="bib162" id="ref117">162</reflink>]) administered the same intervention program to fourth to sixth graders in order to examine its applicability in promoting reading fluency as well as accuracy among disabled readers. The results showed a clear advantage over the comparison group in both morphology, reading accuracy and fluency.</p> <p>Bar‐Kochva ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref118">11</reflink>]) conducted a morpheme‐based training intervention among Hebrew‐speaking university students with dyslexia. The sample was divided into four groups: dyslexic readers who received the training (<emph>n</emph> = 21), dyslexic readers who received a control (Hawthorne) intervention (<emph>n</emph> = 20), and another two groups—dyslexic readers (<emph>n</emph> = 17) and typical readers (<emph>n</emph> = 20) who did not receive any training. Using a lexical decision task, the training included words and pseudowords in which the presentation of three of the word's letters was time‐limited while the rest of the target letters remained on the screen until the participant responded. In the morpheme‐based training, these letters were the root letters, while in the control training, these letters included two letters from the root and one from the pattern (a non‐morphological unit). Modest but superior gains on reading accuracy and spelling were found in the morpheme‐based training group.</p> <p>To sum up, the current literature suggests that morphology becomes increasingly important as reading develops although relatively little is known about the specific sub‐systems of inflection and derivation, and how they impact different aspects of reading (accuracy, rate/fluency, comprehension). The training studies support a causal role for morphology in Hebrew reading development and underscore the promising role of morphological interventions in promoting reading performance among struggling readers, and the value of incorporating multiple aspects of morphology into programs of Hebrew reading instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0183756699-12">The Triplex Model of Hebrew Reading Development</hd> <p>The Triplex model, proposed by Share and Bar‐On ([<reflink idref="bib140" id="ref119">140</reflink>]), aims to describe a model of early Hebrew word reading which is faithful to the unique features of the Hebrew language and orthography. Couched within the theoretical framework of the unfamiliar‐to‐familiar, novice‐to‐expert dualism proposed by Share ([<reflink idref="bib137" id="ref120">137</reflink>]), the Triplex model describes the developmental transition from slow, effortful, serial, unskilled word reading to rapid, near‐effortless, unitized, skilled performance. As such, this model integrates universal and script‐specific factors, outlining a three‐phase model of reading acquisition:</p> <hd id="AN0183756699-13">Phase 1: Phonological (sub‐lexical) deciphering</hd> <p>In first grade, the reader first encounters the highly decodable pointed script of Hebrew. In this phase, as in other highly transparent orthographies (see Share, this volume) students typically exhibit <emph>kriya metzarefet</emph> ("combining" or "joining up" reading), reflecting their heavy reliance on vowel diacritics and their sequential spelling‐to‐sound decoding at the level of CV units and single (extra‐core) consonants. Relatively rapid early mastery of the spelling‐sound code by the end of Grade 1 (reviewed in Share & Levin, [<reflink idref="bib142" id="ref121">142</reflink>]; Shany et al., [<reflink idref="bib133" id="ref122">133</reflink>]), allows children to decipher any letter string, real words, and pseudowords alike, as the reader is still primarily dependent on phonology rather than morphological and/or lexical information (Gur, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref123">68</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183756699-14">Phase 2: Lexico‐morpho‐orthographic processing</hd> <p>The second year of schooling, Grade 2, is considered a watershed in Hebrew reading development—a turning point in which the reader relies less on low‐level sub‐lexical phonology and, simultaneously, increases reliance on higher‐order lexical, morphological, and orthographic information. In this phase, word reading becomes less labored, accompanied by significant growth in the reader's orthographic lexicon.</p> <hd id="AN0183756699-15">Phase 3: Supra‐lexical contextual processing</hd> <p>The transition to the unpointed script emphasizes the role of context in resolving the lexical ambiguity created by pervasive homography. This phase appears only in the upper elementary grades when word recognition attains fluency and automaticity, freeing the reader's cognitive resources to focus more on supralexical morpho‐syntactic and semantic information. This enables the reader to rapidly access the appropriate pronunciation and meaning of the ambiguous word within the text.</p> <hd id="AN0183756699-16">Developmental Dyslexia in Hebrew</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183756699-17">Phonological and Morphological Deficits</hd> <p>During the 1990s, research into dyslexia captured the interest of many Israeli researchers. While the first generation of research confirmed the phonological deficit in Hebrew (see Bentin, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref124">20</reflink>]; Share, [<reflink idref="bib136" id="ref125">136</reflink>] for reviews), subsequent work has focused on the study of morphology (and morpho‐syntax; e.g., Ben‐Dror, Bentin, & Frost, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref126">18</reflink>]; Bentin et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref127">21</reflink>]; Frost & Bentin, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref128">58</reflink>]; Frost et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref129">59</reflink>]; Ravid, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref130">109</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref131">111</reflink>]). Today, both phonology and morphology are firmly established as two independent sources of difficulty among Hebrew‐speaking individuals with dyslexia.</p> <p>Since the turn of the century, Israeli researchers have continued to deepen our knowledge of the morphology‐dyslexia link. Adults with dyslexia have demonstrated underperformance in explicit derivational and inflectional morphological tasks compared to typically developing readers (Kimel & Ahissar, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref132">80</reflink>]; Leikin & Even Zur, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref133">88</reflink>]; Schiff et al., [<reflink idref="bib125" id="ref134">125</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref135">117</reflink>]; Schiff & Ravid, [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref136">121</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib122" id="ref137">122</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref138">123</reflink>]). Their poor morphological performance, furthermore, is not explained by phonological deficits or working memory (Leikin & Even Zur, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref139">88</reflink>]; Schiff et al., [<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref140">117</reflink>]; Shalev‐Leifer, [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref141">130</reflink>]) and the findings of morphological deficits among adolescents and adults with dyslexia have been observed among elementary school children as well (e.g., Schiff & Ravid, [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref142">121</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib122" id="ref143">122</reflink>]).</p> <p>In line with the hypothesis that individuals with dyslexia have weaker explicit morphological awareness, Kimel and Ahissar ([<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref144">80</reflink>]) reported that, when comparing adults with and without dyslexia, only the control group exhibited enhanced recall benefit from familiar morphological structures compared to unfamiliar ones, but both groups benefited to the same extent from these regularities in word recognition. Dyslexic adult readers have also been found to perform similarly to typical readers in morphological priming, including masked priming (Leikin & Even Zur, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref145">88</reflink>]; Raveh & Schiff, [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref146">108</reflink>]; Schiff et al., [<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref147">117</reflink>]).</p> <p>Schiff et al. ([<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref148">118</reflink>]) recently suggested that adults with dyslexia might have intact central morphological processes. Their claim was based on studies showing that Hebrew‐speaking adults with dyslexia exhibited intact priming effects in the auditory modality (Raveh & Schiff, [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref149">108</reflink>]), but not in the visual modality (Raveh & Schiff, [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref150">108</reflink>]; Schiff & Raveh, [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref151">120</reflink>]). This conclusion corresponds with a study by Bitan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref152">27</reflink>]) showing that readers with dyslexia rely on morphological decomposition to compensate for their phonological deficits, as suggested previously by Elbro and Arnbak ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref153">51</reflink>]) and Leikin and Even Zur ([<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref154">88</reflink>]). This notion of compensatory processing converges with Stanovich's interactive‐compensatory model (Stanovich, [<reflink idref="bib153" id="ref155">153</reflink>]) in which poor readers (and individuals with dyslexia) rely more on non‐phonological sources of information such as sentence context when decoding abilities are weak.</p> <p>Taken together, these results appear to suggest that persons with reading difficulties (both dyslexics and non‐dyslexics) have poorer explicit knowledge about morphology in metalinguistic tasks but rely more on this knowledge in implicit online word reading tasks that invoke morphology. Furthermore, the intervention studies provide empirical evidence on how targeted morphological interventions can improve reading outcomes for struggling readers, supporting the importance of morphological awareness as a causal influence in reading development.</p> <hd id="AN0183756699-18">The Asynchrony Deficit Hypothesis</hd> <p>The asynchrony theory, proposed by Zvia Breznitz ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref156">32</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref157">33</reflink>]), represents an original Israeli theory. According to this hypothesis, an asynchrony between the speed of processing (SOP) in visual‐orthographic and auditory‐phonological modalities is assumed to be an underlying cause of dyslexia. Breznitz ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref158">33</reflink>]) initially examined this hypothesis empirically among elementary dyslexic readers using both behavioral and electrophysiological (ERP) measures, including non‐linguistic and linguistic auditory and low‐level visual‐perceptual tasks, as well as higher‐level orthographic and phonological tasks. The results revealed that dyslexic readers were significantly slower in most of the experimental tasks compared to normal readers. In addition to behavioral differences in reaction times, electrophysiological differences were manifested as temporal gaps between P300 latencies recorded at central brain sites during low‐level visual versus auditory tasks, as well as higher‐level orthographic versus phonological tasks. These temporal gaps which were evident in faster visual‐orthographic processing relative to slower auditory‐linguistic processes were most prominent in the orthographic‐phonological gap, and explained most of the variance in word recognition. In a follow‐up study among adults with dyslexia, Breznitz and Misra ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref159">34</reflink>]) replicated the SOP gap in P300 latency between the auditory‐phonological and the visual‐orthographic measures, with a significantly greater gap for individuals with dyslexia compared to controls.</p> <p>The asynchrony theory received additional empirical support in an intervention study by Horowitz‐Kraus et al. ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref160">72</reflink>]) using fMRI with children aged 8–12, with (<emph>n</emph> = 19) and without (<emph>n</emph> = 21) dyslexia. Two text conditions were examined: the "original" deleted‐text condition (that accelerates reading fluency) versus a non‐deleted text condition. Results showed that, compared to the control group, children with dyslexia demonstrated a significantly greater increase in visual–auditory functional connectivity between the two text conditions, which was significantly associated with improved reading fluency. In an additional study, Menashe ([<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref161">98</reflink>]) examined the SOP asynchrony hypothesis among adult dyslexic readers using a manipulation of spatial selective attention. While no behavioral asynchrony was observed, the ERP data again revealed greater asynchrony between the auditory and visual modalities among dyslexic readers compared to controls when alphabetic stimuli were presented in the right hemifield. This hemifield effect was explained by a diminished hemispheric specialization for speech in the left hemisphere among individuals with dyslexia (Illingworth & Bishop, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref162">74</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite several subsequent investigations by Israeli researchers supporting the asynchrony hypothesis of dyslexia (e.g., Menashe, [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref163">98</reflink>]; Sela, [<reflink idref="bib128" id="ref164">128</reflink>]; Shaul, [<reflink idref="bib145" id="ref165">145</reflink>]), this theory has yet to draw the attention of researchers outside Israel.</p> <hd id="AN0183756699-19">The Magno‐Cellular Deficit Hypothesis</hd> <p>This hypothesis proposes that dyslexia reflects an abnormality within the visual system. Since the 1980s, a series of perceptual studies have proposed that individuals with dyslexia encounter difficulties in processing rapid, low‐contrast visual information (e.g., Lehmkuhle et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref166">87</reflink>]; Livingstone et al., [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref167">92</reflink>]; Lovegrove et al., [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref168">95</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref169">94</reflink>]), a type of information conveyed by the magnosystem. Consequently, dyslexia has been claimed to be caused by a magnocellular deficit (Stein, [<reflink idref="bib155" id="ref170">155</reflink>]; Stein & Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib156" id="ref171">156</reflink>]).</p> <p>Ahissar, Ben‐Yehuda, and their colleagues investigated this hypothesis among dyslexic Hebrew‐speaking adults. In their first study, Ben‐Yehudah et al. ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref172">24</reflink>]) reported inconsistent findings concerning the assumed impaired contrast sensitivity in dyslexic adults. While individuals with dyslexia exhibited impaired sensitivity to drifting and flickering visual gratings presented sequentially in a temporal forced‐choice task, their sensitivity did not differ from typical readers when these visual gratings were presented simultaneously in a spatial forced‐choice task. Based on their findings, the authors concluded that impaired temporal contrast sensitivity among individuals with dyslexia is task‐specific rather than reflecting a global magnocellular deficit.</p> <p>In a follow‐up study, Ben‐Yehudah and Ahissar ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref173">23</reflink>]) investigated the impact of experimental procedure on discrimination performance in dyslexic adults (<emph>n</emph> = 33) and typical readers (<emph>n</emph> = 34). Their main finding was that, for the majority of individuals with dyslexia, spatial frequency discrimination performance was significantly impaired under sequential presentation (i.e., temporal forced choice) but not under simultaneous presentation (i.e., spatial forced choice). The authors concluded that rather than a specific magnocellular deficit, dyslexic readers exhibit impaired <emph>sequential</emph> spatial frequency discrimination. In an additional investigation conducted by Ram‐Tsur et al. ([<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref174">107</reflink>]), this pattern of results was replicated with dyslexic adults showing poor performance on the temporal‐sequential tasks, but not in the non‐temporal spatial task, again disconfirming the magnocellular deficit hypothesis.</p> <p>An additional examination of the magnocellular theory was conducted by Amitay et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref175">6</reflink>]) among dyslexic adults (<emph>n</emph> = 30) and controls (<emph>n</emph> = 30), using a battery of magnocellular (e.g., flicker, drift, coherent motion), and non‐magnocellular tasks (visual spatial frequency discrimination, auditory intensity, and frequency discrimination). Only 6 out of the 30 individuals with dyslexia were found to have impaired magnocellular functioning but this subgroup were also consistently impaired on some non‐magnocellular tasks. Although Chase and Stein ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref176">37</reflink>]) criticized Amitay et al.'s criterion for poor performance, re‐analysis of the data added only one subject to the magnocellular subgroup (Amitay et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref177">7</reflink>]). The authors concluded that their data did not support the magnocellular deficit hypothesis.</p> <p>In an attempt to test the magnocellular deficit hypothesis as a causal explanation of dyslexia, Heth and Lavidor ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref178">70</reflink>]) conducted an intervention study examining the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on the magnocellular system in dyslexic adults during reading. Ten subjects took part in the intervention procedure, and nine subjects underwent sham stimulation. Visual stimulation was administered over the left V5 area, a brain area which is dominated by magnocellular input. After five sessions, the authors observed an improvement in oral text reading speed. Improvement was also observed in both letter and number‐naming speed, but not symbol‐search. In accordance with the magnocellular hypothesis, the authors concluded that their findings highlighted the role of the dorsal stream in efficient retrieval of orthography‐specific input.</p> <p>Nearly a decade has elapsed since the last Hebrew‐language study of the magnocellular hypothesis. The current literature indicates that, with the exception of Heth and Lavidor's intervention study, research in Israel on the magnocellular hypothesis has not provided decisive evidence for a magnocellular deficit in dyslexic readers.</p> <hd id="AN0183756699-20">Cognitive Effort Hypothesis</hd> <p>Another original Israeli line of inquiry, currently underway in our lab, focuses on the role of cognitive effort in understanding developmental and individual differences in word recognition. The concept of mental effort, and effortlessness in particular, has been a common denominator in the psychological literature on skilled reading (Kuhn et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref179">84</reflink>]; LaBerge & Samuels, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref180">85</reflink>]; Logan, [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref181">93</reflink>]; Perfetti, [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref182">105</reflink>]; because it enables the skilled reader to devote limited processing resources to comprehension; LaBerge & Samuels, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref183">85</reflink>]; Perfetti, [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref184">105</reflink>]; Perfetti & Helder, [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref185">104</reflink>]). By contrast, the disabled reader's word reading is characteristically slow, error‐prone, and labored—a major deterrent to literacy development. Acknowledging the importance of effort in word reading, DSM‐5 (American Psychiatric Association, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref186">5</reflink>], p. 84) defines Specific Learning Disorder in reading as "inaccurate or slow and <emph>effortful</emph> word reading [author italics]." However, whereas the measurement of word reading accuracy and rate has long been standard practice in the assessment of reading skill, the definition, and operationalization of the concept of effort remains in disarray (Logan, [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref187">93</reflink>]; Megherbi et al., [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref188">97</reflink>]; Moors & de Houwer, [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref189">100</reflink>]; Share, [<reflink idref="bib137" id="ref190">137</reflink>]; Stanovich, [<reflink idref="bib154" id="ref191">154</reflink>]; Wolf & Katzir‐Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib175" id="ref192">175</reflink>]). Seeking to fill this gap, our current work has aimed to shed new light on the mental effort involved in the reading process using pupillometry—the measurement of task‐dependent changes in pupil dilation.</p> <p>In the first pupillometric investigation to examine the cognitive effort in word recognition among both skilled adult readers and young children, we observed a greater degree of cognitive effort for unfamiliar letter‐strings compared to familiar words and stronger length effects for unfamiliar words than for familiar words, in both silent and oral reading modes (Shechter & Share, [<reflink idref="bib149" id="ref193">149</reflink>]). These "proof‐of‐concept" findings confirmed that pupillary responses are sensitive to the cognitive effort involved in word reading and allowed us to move on to the question of developmental and individual differences.</p> <p>Re‐analyzing the data from the Shechter and Share ([<reflink idref="bib149" id="ref194">149</reflink>]), we found that children invested more effort in reading than adults, as indicated by larger and sustained pupillary responses. Moreover, the within‐age analyses comparing faster and slower readers revealed that in both age groups, the faster readers demonstrated accelerated pupillary responses compared to slower readers, although both groups invested a similar overall degree of cognitive effort (Shechter et al., [<reflink idref="bib147" id="ref195">147</reflink>]). This work has revealed a consistent pattern of what appears to be less "efficient" deployment of cognitive resources by less proficient readers. This more "diffuse" pattern repeatedly emerged in our comparisons between adults and children, faster and slower readers, as well as among adults with dyslexia (Kadosh et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref196">75</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183756699-21">Visual Attention Span Hypothesis</hd> <p>A single investigation, conducted by Yeari et al. ([<reflink idref="bib176" id="ref197">176</reflink>]), examined Valdois's visual attention span (VAS) deficit hypothesis of developmental dyslexia (Bosse et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref198">30</reflink>]; Bosse & Valdois, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref199">31</reflink>]; Valdois et al., [<reflink idref="bib167" id="ref200">167</reflink>]). This investigation addressed several methodological issues arising from previous studies, including the need to exclude participants with attention disorders, a factor which has been overlooked in many studies.</p> <p>Theory‐wise, the Yeari et al. study inquired whether a VAS deficit is (i) specific to a global (rather than local) mode of attention; (ii) is specific to character position (rather than character identity); or (iii) is revealed only under conditions requiring high attention load, that is, hard‐to‐discriminate characters and/or short exposure duration. A non‐verbal visual recognition task was employed in which participants were asked to determine which target was briefly presented among two alternatives. This investigation included eight variants of a non‐verbal visual recognition task, each independently manipulating one aspect of the VAS task: the type of target stimulus (array vs. single character), the nature of the incorrect alternative (familiar vs. novel characters), character discriminability (low vs. high), and the exposure duration of the target array (100 vs. 200 ms).</p> <p>Across all these variations, no differences in performance between dyslexic and control participants was obtained, a pattern which was observed in both between‐group and within‐subject analyses. This comprehensive study, therefore, failed to support the notion of a reduced visual attention span as an explanatory factor for dyslexia.</p> <hd id="AN0183756699-22">Statistical Learning Hypothesis</hd> <p>Another explanation for dyslexia proposes a deficiency in statistical learning, such that individuals struggle to detect statistical regularities, particularly in implicit learning tasks that involve unconscious learning of regularities in the surrounding environment (Conway & Christiansen, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref201">42</reflink>]). This line of research has also been examined among Hebrew‐speaking individuals with dyslexia, primarily by Rachel Schiff's lab using the artificial grammar learning (AGL) task.</p> <p>Applying the AGL task in both implicit and explicit versions, Kahta and Schiff et al. ([<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref202">117</reflink>]) compared the performance of typical and dyslexic adults. They found a statistical learning deficit in the implicit learning task, but not in the explicit version, and concluded that the statistical learning deficit among individuals with dyslexia is specific to implicit sequential learning.</p> <p>The reported findings among children appear to be largely consistent in showing an impairment in implicit statistical learning among individuals with dyslexia (Katan et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref203">78</reflink>]; Schiff, Katan, et al., [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref204">119</reflink>]), although, rather than a general deficit, this impairment appeared to be influenced by task complexity (Katan et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref205">78</reflink>]; Schiff, Katan, et al., [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref206">119</reflink>]). For example, by comparing high and low topological entropy (TE) artificial grammar learning tasks, Katan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref207">78</reflink>]) found impaired implicit learning in the more complex grammar system (high‐TE) among dyslexic children compared to typically developing children. However, when task complexity decreased (low‐TE), individuals with dyslexia performed above chance level, detecting underlying regularities from a sequential stimulus, similar to their age‐ and reading level‐matched controls.</p> <p>It is crucial to acknowledge the task‐specific nature of these AGL and other tasks used to study statistical learning (see critical discussion in Frost et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref208">57</reflink>]; Schmalz et al., [<reflink idref="bib126" id="ref209">126</reflink>]; Treiman & Kessler, [<reflink idref="bib161" id="ref210">161</reflink>]; van Witteloostuijn et al., [<reflink idref="bib168" id="ref211">168</reflink>]; West et al., [<reflink idref="bib173" id="ref212">173</reflink>]). One notable limitation of using the AGL task is the ecological validity of highly contrived laboratory tasks with relatively ambiguous connections to word reading per se. Addressing this issue, Kligler et al. ([<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref213">81</reflink>]) examined the implicit and explicit knowledge of cross‐situational word learning by comparing typical adult readers to adults with dyslexia. Participants performed a cross‐situational statistical learning (CSSL) task, in which they heard two words while viewing two objects and had to deduce which word was mapped to which object by exploiting cross‐trial regularities. Here again, individuals with dyslexia exhibited impaired cross‐situational statistical learning, demonstrating impaired implicit (but not explicit) knowledge compared to typical readers.</p> <p>These findings point to a deficit in implicit learning abilities among both adults (Kahta & Schiff, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref214">76</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref215">77</reflink>]; Kligler et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref216">81</reflink>]; Schiff, Sasson, et al., [<reflink idref="bib124" id="ref217">124</reflink>]) and children (Katan et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref218">78</reflink>]; Schiff, Katan, et al., [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref219">119</reflink>]) but, again, AGL and CSSL tasks are highly contrived laboratory procedures with uncertain ecological validity. This concern adds weight to broader concerns regarding the concept of statistical learning and its value in the reading field (see Frost et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref220">57</reflink>]; Schmalz et al., [<reflink idref="bib126" id="ref221">126</reflink>]; Treiman & Kessler, [<reflink idref="bib161" id="ref222">161</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183756699-23">Auditory Temporal Processing Deficit Hypothesis</hd> <p>Several investigations, mainly led by Leah Fostick, have confirmed the temporal processing deficit hypothesis (Tallal, [<reflink idref="bib158" id="ref223">158</reflink>]) as a core difficulty in dyslexia among Hebrew‐speaking adults (Ben‐Artzi et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref224">16</reflink>]; Fostick et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref225">52</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref226">53</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref227">54</reflink>]; Fostick & Revah, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref228">55</reflink>]; Gabay et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref229">62</reflink>]; Lifshitz‐Ben‐Basat & Fostick, [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref230">91</reflink>]) and children (Cohen‐Mimran, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref231">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>Using several variations of Talla's Repetition Test in which participants are asked to discriminate between two auditory stimuli, Ben‐Artzi et al. ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref232">16</reflink>]) found that individuals with dyslexia were less accurate and slower than typical readers in the spectral version of the repetition test. In an additional experiment, the authors used the dichotic temporal order judgment (TOJ) version of the repetition test with varying ISIs. In this case, individuals with dyslexia showed lower accuracy compared to typical readers, although no difference was observed between the groups in reaction times. These results support the temporal‐order deficit hypothesis in dyslexia and refute an explanation of impaired frequency‐based holistic‐pattern processing.</p> <p>In an additional study, Fostick et al. ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref233">52</reflink>]) investigated whether the auditory temporal perception deficit reflects a general perceptual impairment or a specific deficit in auditory temporal processing. They assessed auditory intensity and spectral processing alongside auditory temporal processing, in both adults with dyslexia and typical readers. The results indicated that individuals with dyslexia performed more poorly on both auditory spectral and temporal processing tasks compared to typical readers, even after controlling for working memory. However, no significant difference was observed in the performance on intensity processing tasks. Rather than suggesting a general auditory deficit, the authors concluded that their data demonstrates a specific auditory temporal processing deficit among dyslexic readers, which cannot be explained by poor working memory.</p> <p>On the downside, the findings regarding the connection between dyslexics' temporal processing and reading performance have been inconsistent. In Ben‐Artzi et al. ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref234">16</reflink>]) dyslexics scores in both dichotic and spectral tasks were not correlated with reading accuracy or speed. However, Fostick et al. ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref235">53</reflink>]) found that the dichotic task was moderately correlated with reading ability among individuals with dyslexia, but not among typical readers. Temporal processing was also found to be a predictor of word reading (i.e., number of words read correctly), beyond the contribution of working memory. Fostick et al. ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref236">54</reflink>]) conducted an intervention study that included a short‐term training procedure, comparing typical with dyslexic adult readers. Participants were allocated to three groups, each undergoing training in either temporal processing (i.e., dichotic TOJ), non‐temporal processing (i.e., intensity discrimination), or no training. The results revealed that only the training in temporal processing was found effective in improving phoneme deletion and pseudoword reading, hence support a causal connection between impaired temporal processing and phonological aspects of word reading as originally proposed by Tallal ([<reflink idref="bib158" id="ref237">158</reflink>]). Additional support for the auditory temporal processing hypothesis has been reported among children (Cohen‐Mimran, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref238">38</reflink>]). Comparing children with and without dyslexia, participants were asked to discriminate spoken syllables (/ba/ vs. /pa/) distinguished by voice onset time, using short (50 ms) and long (500 msec) inter‐stimulus intervals (ISIs). Behavioral measurements showed that individuals with dyslexia were less accurate and responded more slowly at both ISIs compared to typical readers. The ERP data also revealed delayed P3 latencies for the individuals with dyslexia compared to controls. Finally, P3 latencies and TOJs were significantly associated with phonological awareness and pseudoword reading at the short but not long ISI.</p> <hd id="AN0183756699-24">The Anchoring Deficit Hypothesis</hd> <p>This hypothesis, conceived by Merav Ahissar and her colleagues, proposed that individuals with dyslexia are impaired at extracting acoustic regularities. Owing to an impaired perceptual anchoring mechanism, individuals with dyslexia show poor performance in simple auditory discrimination tasks (for a review, see Ahissar, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref239">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the first anchoring study, Ahissar et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref240">4</reflink>]) used a frequency discrimination method in which the participants were asked to report the higher tone out of two sequentially presented tones. In the standard condition an "anchor" tone was presented in each trial that was always lower than a second tone, while in the "no‐standard" or "non‐anchored" condition, there was no standard or anchoring tone. Typical readers showed lower discrimination thresholds in the anchored condition compared to the non‐anchored condition, implying that they implicitly formed a perceptual anchor. In contrast, dyslexic readers did not exhibit any benefit from the repeated anchoring stimulus.</p> <p>This anchoring deficit was replicated in Ahissar ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref241">3</reflink>]) and again in Oganian and Ahissar ([<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref242">103</reflink>]) among Hebrew‐speaking adults with dyslexia. Furthermore, in a recent meta‐analysis of the anchoring deficit theory which reviewed eight studies in multiple languages (Hebrew, Italian, French, Dutch, and English), the overall effect of the perceptual anchoring deficit in individuals with dyslexia was found to be significant and moderate (Shulver & Badcock, [<reflink idref="bib152" id="ref243">152</reflink>]). In contrast, several studies failed to replicate this effect using group‐averaged data (French: Agus et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref244">2</reflink>]; Ziegler, [<reflink idref="bib179" id="ref245">179</reflink>]; English: Conner, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref246">41</reflink>]; Italian: Di Filippo et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref247">48</reflink>]; German: Willburger & Landerl, [<reflink idref="bib174" id="ref248">174</reflink>]), including Hebrew (Daikhin et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref249">43</reflink>]). Thus, further studies are needed to establish the viability of the anchoring deficit hypothesis.</p> <hd id="AN0183756699-25">Procedural Learning Deficit Hypothesis</hd> <p>Yet another explanation of dyslexia is related to impaired procedural learning. This line of research has been led by Yafit Gabay and colleagues who focused on Hebrew‐speaking adults with and without dyslexia. In their initial forays into this field of inquiry, Gabay and colleagues (Gabay et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref250">63</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref251">64</reflink>]) focused on motor learning. They found that compared to typical readers, individuals with dyslexia exhibited less stability, and resistance to interference (Gabay et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref252">64</reflink>]). Additionally, under a divided attention condition, individuals with dyslexia showed delayed acquisition of a learned motor sequence and less effective consolidation (Gabay et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref253">63</reflink>]). In a subsequent study, Gabay et al. ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref254">65</reflink>]) examined procedural learning by focusing on both linguistic and motoric domains. A dissociation was observed such that individuals with dyslexia showed unimpaired transfer of the motor sequence but impaired letter name sequences. Accordingly, the authors concluded that the impaired procedural learning in dyslexia is more dominant in the procedural learning system of language compared to the motor domain.</p> <p>A related study conducted by Sela and Karni ([<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref255">129</reflink>]) compared adult with dyslexia to typical readers. The two groups learned a new finger movement sequence in order to assess whether individuals with dyslexia exhibit a dysfunction of volitional (manual) and/or non‐volitional (posture) movement. In manual performance, both groups showed well‐retained gains in speed, but individuals with dyslexia were slower in the initiation of the volitional performance. They also had significantly larger postural sway throughout the experiment and were less efficient in adapting their posture to support the new movement sequence. Based on their results, the authors suggested that dyslexia involved a non‐linguistic deficit rather than a general procedural motor learning deficit (Sela & Karni, [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref256">129</reflink>]).</p> <p>Seeking to clarify the nature of the relationship between impaired procedural learning deficits and language‐related processing, Gabay and Holt ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref257">61</reflink>]) assessed the link between procedural learning and phonological impairment among individuals with dyslexia by focusing on phonetic category learning. Using non‐linguistic sounds in a videogame paradigm, dyslexic individuals demonstrated less effective nonspeech auditory category learning compared to the control group. Furthermore, the category‐learning score was correlated with pseudoword decoding and phonological awareness. Consequently, the authors suggested that the observed impairment in auditory category learning may play a role in the well‐known phonological deficits associated with dyslexia.</p> <p>Gabay et al. ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref258">60</reflink>]) also investigated whether dyslexia is related to a specific impairment in processing printed words or a domain‐general deficit affecting the recognition of varied visual stimuli, including faces. To address this question, the study focused on the recognition and discrimination of faces versus words and cars (as control stimuli) among typical and dyslexic adult readers, including both native Hebrew speakers and native English speakers. The findings revealed that individuals with dyslexia not only struggled with word processing, as anticipated, but also exhibited impairments in face processing. That is, in comparison to typical readers, individuals with dyslexia exhibited slower face matching, displayed an exaggerated cost in matching faces across different viewpoints, and demonstrated poorer discrimination between similar faces. This atypical perceptual processing of faces did not extend to the car condition, leading the authors to suggest that dyslexia has a partially domain‐general basis.</p> <p>These tantalizing findings leave unanswered many questions regarding the procedural learning deficit of dyslexia. Specifically, they raise questions about the nature of this impairment, whether it is a motor, linguistic, or non‐linguistic deficit. These inquiries all involved cross‐sectional designs with adult samples, leaving uncertainty about whether the documented deficits are the cause or the consequence of dyslexia.</p> <hd id="AN0183756699-26">Dyslexia Subtyping Based on Reading Accuracy versus Reading Rate Deficits</hd> <p>The theories described so far offer unicausal explanations for dyslexia, searching for the root cause of dyslexia across the entire population. In contrast, Michal Shany has proposed a subtyping scheme based on the distinction between word reading rate and word reading accuracy (in Hebrew: Shany & Breznitz, [<reflink idref="bib134" id="ref259">134</reflink>], Shany & Share, [<reflink idref="bib135" id="ref260">135</reflink>]; and in Arabic: Shany et al., [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref261">132</reflink>]). This framework categorizes individuals with dyslexia into three distinct groups—rate‐disabled, accuracy‐disabled, and doubly disabled, with each group representing approximately one‐third of the dyslexic population. It is important to note that reading rate in Shany's scheme denotes <emph>pure</emph> reading speed—the number of words read (correctly or incorrectly) in 1 min.</p> <p>A true double dissociation between accuracy and rate was first observed in a nationally representative sample of Hebrew‐speaking fourth graders, with two distinct single‐deficit subgroups exhibiting intact reading performance on the non‐disabled dimension alongside impaired performance on the disabled dimension. Furthermore, the two subgroups also exhibited doubly dissociated cognitive–linguistic profiles. Whereas the accuracy‐only disability subgroup displayed selective deficits in phonological awareness and morphological knowledge, the rate‐disabled subgroup was impaired only on rapid automatized naming (RAN) (Denckla & Rudel, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref262">47</reflink>]). The accuracy‐versus‐rate double dissociation, and the matching cognitive‐linguistic dissociation, were also observed among a clinical sample of adults with dyslexia that included over 300 dyslexic university students and 200 controls (Shany & Breznitz, [<reflink idref="bib134" id="ref263">134</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref264">3</reflink>]</p> <p>Goldstein‐Marcusohn et al. ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref265">67</reflink>]) provided additional support for the rate‐accuracy subtyping classification in a study of global versus local processing with Hebrew‐speaking adults. Applying a variation of Navon's classic task[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref266">4</reflink>] (Navon, [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref267">101</reflink>]; Weinbach & Henik, [<reflink idref="bib171" id="ref268">171</reflink>]) using visual and non‐verbal stimuli, the authors revealed distinct processing styles between the two subgroups with the rate‐disabled group showing difficulties in global processing, and the accuracy‐disabled group struggling in local processing. In an additional study, Weiss et al. ([<reflink idref="bib172" id="ref269">172</reflink>]) focused on the rate‐disabled subgroup in a sample of second‐grade Hebrew‐speaking children. A domain‐specific RAN deficit was observed among rate‐disabled readers but not among accuracy‐disabled readers. Notably, while the rate‐disabled readers did not exhibit processing speed deficits in either spoken language or non‐linguistic tasks, they consistently demonstrated reliable speed deficits in tasks involving printed alphanumeric symbols and spelling pattern recognition (orthographic choice). Overall, these findings suggest that among rate‐disabled readers, a naming speed deficit is highly specific to the alphanumeric domain and not a domain‐general deficit.</p> <p>Unlike the Anglophone phonological/surface subtypes proposed by Castles and Coltheart ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref270">36</reflink>]) which are founded on the differences in reading accuracy between regular versus exception words in English, Shany's rate‐accuracy typology is applicable to any orthography, deep or shallow, alphabetic and non‐alphabetic, and therefore has potentially universal applicability. Furthermore, the fact that the rate‐disabled and accuracy‐disabled subtypes have non‐overlapping reading and cognitive‐linguistic profiles calls for very different interventions for these two selectively disabled subtypes.</p> <p>Summing up, research on dyslexia among Hebrew speakers has repeatedly affirmed phonological and morphological deficits in this group. Furthermore, the intervention studies confirm the causal role of both phonological awareness and morphology and demonstrate the benefits of training these skills. In contrast to these converging findings, attempts to uncover the "basic" perceptual/neurobiological mechanisms underlying the behavioral phenotype of dyslexia have tended to produce mixed results (with the notable exception of the auditory temporal deficit hypothesis). A major concern in this field of inquiry is the issue of task‐specific effects, such that many of these "underlying" theories rely heavily on highly contrived experimental paradigms often with questionable relevance to real reading. Yet another complication is the question of comorbid disorders such as ADHD and DLD (formerly SLI). Even when controlled, most studies settle for self‐reported measurement of attention deficit (ADHD) and language impairment (SLI) rather than objective assessment. Yet another shortcoming is that most investigations recruit small samples, primarily consisting of undergraduates with dyslexia. These participants, who are likely to be "compensated" (e.g., Shaul, [<reflink idref="bib146" id="ref271">146</reflink>]), might not represent the general population of individuals with dyslexia. Finally, most studies adhere to the conventional "whole‐group" approach of recruiting a group of individuals with dyslexia and looking at mean (group‐averaged) performance on a particular task. This approach tacitly assumes that all individuals with dyslexia have the same problem. However, the subtyping work of Shany and colleagues clearly shows that this approach is faulty. That is, different individuals with dyslexia may have entirely different and non‐overlapping cognitive and linguistic profiles which call for very different intervention approaches.</p> <hd id="AN0183756699-27">General Discussion and Conclusions</hd> <p>Studying reading development in a non‐European language written in a non‐alphabetic script, such as Hebrew, provides a valuable antidote to over‐reliance on Anglophone and European reading research. The generalizability issue is especially critical for developing countries with little or no reading research infrastructure who are wont to uncritically adopt Western theories and practices given the wealth and prestige of English‐language research. Fortunately, the study of language and literacy development in Hebrew by Israeli scholars has been quite fruitful with a modest but growing body of knowledge now available to inform decision makers.</p> <p>The accumulated evidence has repeatedly affirmed the importance of both phonological awareness and morphological awareness in Hebrew reading development. Dyslexia research in this country has also established the presence of phonological and morphological deficits among reading disabled/dyslexic groups. In addition, a number of well‐known as well as original Israeli theories have also been tested or developed regarding the underlying perceptual/neurobiological factors likely to explain reading disabilities. However, in most cases, the findings have been mixed and have not yielded the converging findings from independent labs using multiple experimental paradigms that are needed to draw firm conclusions. Factors such as task specificity stemming from highly contrived laboratory experiments, conflicting outcomes, and confounds with comorbid disorders such as ADHD may be partly to blame. Another concern is the "whole‐group" approach which implicitly assumes that all, or most individuals with dyslexia, have the same problem. The subtyping work of Shany and colleagues suggests that this approach may be flawed. Individuals with dyslexia may have completely different reading, cognitive, linguistic (not to mention social–emotional) profiles and therefore require very different interventions. Future research would also do well to examine the question of subtype by treatment interactions. It seems reasonable to assume, for example, that rate‐disabled dyslexics would be likely to benefit more from fluency‐oriented interventions, whereas the accuracy‐disabled subtype would benefit more from phonological and morphological interventions that have already proven their efficacy among undifferentiated groups of struggling readers. Given that all the subtyping work to date has been cross‐sectional, a longitudinal‐developmental approach is needed to establish the stability of these subtypes and examine developmental trajectories across the reading lifespan. It would also be valuable to move beyond group‐wise comparisons to look at individuals' performance profiles and growth curves in the spirit of the multiple case study approach. More generally, longitudinal studies of the development of reading in typical and atypical populations are also needed to go beyond the correlational "what predicts reading" approach and examine more fine‐grained questions such as which aspects of phonology or morphology, for example, influence which aspects of reading as well as documenting qualitative changes over time using multiple tools in tasks that maximize ecological validity.</p> <hd id="AN0183756699-28">Conflict of Interest</hd> <p>None.</p> <ref id="AN0183756699-29"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref8" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> The accepted term today among writing systems experts is abjad (Daniels, [45]). Although some authors (e.g., Shimron, [151]) refer to any writing system with signs for single phonemes as an "alphabet" (Gnanadesikan ([66]) refers to such phonemic systems as "segmentaries"), we use the term <emph>alphabet</emph> in the stricter sense of a system of writing (such as the Roman alphabet) that represents both consonant and vowel phonemes on an equal footing. Historically, Hebrew began as a pure abjad with later addition of the vowel letters and (even later) the vowel diacritics (Shimron, [151]). But even in today's fully pointed script, the vowels (unlike alphabets) do not have the same status as consonants. This is evident in their size, positioning, their omission in the standard unpointed script used for skilled readers, and current pedagogical practice where beginning readers/writers are expected to write the consonants correctly but not the vowels. We therefore refer to the Hebrew abjad as non‐alphabetic and avoid the term "consonantal alphabet."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref110" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bar‐Kochva ([10]) found significant predictive correlations between Kindergarten MA and later reading comprehension but not silent word reading fluency in Grades 1 and 2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref239" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> The same double dissociation has also been found in a nationally representative sample of Arabic‐speaking fourth graders (Shany et al., [132]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref240" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Navon's task includes a large (global) letter composed of smaller (local) letters, which can either be congruent or incongruent with the global letter. Participants are asked to identify either the large letter or the smaller ones.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0183756699-30"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Abu Ahmad, H., & Share, D. L. (2021). Foundations of early literacy among Arabic‐speaking pre‐school children. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 42 (5), 1195 – 1220.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Agus, T. R., Carrión‐Castillo, A., Pressnitzer, D., & Ramus, F. (2014). Perceptual learning of acoustic noise by individuals with dyslexia. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57, 1069 – 1077.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ahissar, M. (2007). Dyslexia and the anchoring‐deficit hypothesis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 458 – 465.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ahissar, M., Lubin, Y., Putter‐Katz, H., & Banai, K. (2006). Dyslexia and the failure to form a perceptual anchor. Nature Neuroscience, 9, 1558 – 1564.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref186" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref175" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Amitay, S., Ben‐Yehudah, G., Banai, K., & Ahissar, M. (2002). Disabled readers suffer from visual and auditory impairments but not from a specific magnocellular deficit. Brain, 125, 2272 – 2285.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref177" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Amitay, S., Ben‐Yehudah, G., Banai, K., & Ahissar, M. (2003). Reply to: Visual magnocellular deficits in dyslexia. Brain, 126, e3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref80" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Anthony, J. L., Lonigan, C. J., Driscoll, K., Phillips, B. M., & Burgess, S. R. (2003). Phonological sensitivity: A quasi‐parallel progression of word structure units and cognitive operations. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 470 – 487.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref21" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Ashkenazi, O., Ravid, D., & Gillis, S. (2016). Breaking into the Hebrew verb system: A learning problem. First Language, 36 (5), 505 – 524.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bar‐Kochva, I. (2013). What are the underlying skills of silent reading acquisition? A developmental study from kindergarten to the 2nd grade. Reading and Writing, 26 (9), 1417 – 1436.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bar‐Kochva, I. (2016). An examination of an intervention program designed to enhance Reading and spelling through the training of morphological decomposition in word recognition. Scientific Studies of Reading, 20 (2), 163 – 172.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bar‐Kochva, I., & Breznitz, Z. (2014). Reading scripts that differ in orthographic transparency: A within‐participant‐and‐language investigation of underlying skills. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 121, 12 – 27.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bar‐Kochva, I., & Nevo, E. (2019). The relations of early phonological awareness, rapid‐naming and speed of processing with the development of spelling and reading: A longitudinal examination. Journal of Research in Reading, 42 (1), 97 – 122.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bar‐On, A. (2015). Kriya betzel hahomografia: haba'aya hi gam hapitaron [Reading in the shadow of homography: The problem is the solution]. Safa Ve'Oriyanut, 5, 99 – 120.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bar‐On, A., & Ravid, D. (2011). Morphological analysis in learning to read pseudowords in Hebrew. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 32, 553 – 581.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ben‐Artzi, E., Fostick, L., & Babkoff, H. (2005). Deficits in temporal‐order judgments in dyslexia: Evidence from diotic stimuli differing spectrally and from dichotic stimuli differing only by perceived location. Neuropsychologia, 43 (5), 714 – 723.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bendavid, A. (1971). Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew. [In Hebrew.]. Dvir.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ben‐Dror, I., Bentin, S., & Frost, R. (1995). Semantic, phonologic, and morphologic skills in reading disabled and normal children: Evidence from perception and production of spoken Hebrew. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 876.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ben‐Dror, I., Frost, R., & Bentin, S. (1995). Orthographic representation and phonemic segmentation in skilled readers: A cross‐language comparison. Psychological Science, 6 (3), 176 – 181.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bentin, S. (1992). Phonological awareness, reading, and reading acquisition: A survey and appraisal of current knowledge. In Advances in psychology (Vol. 94, pp. 193 – 210). North‐Holland.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bentin, S., Deutsch, A., & Liberman, I. Y. (1990). Syntactic competence and reading ability in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49 (1), 147 – 172.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bentin, S., & Leshem, H. (1993). On the interaction of phonologic awareness and reading acquisition: It's a two‐way street. Psychological Science, 2, 271 – 274.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ben‐Yehudah, G., & Ahissar, M. (2004). Sequential spatial frequency discrimination is consistently impaired among adult dyslexics. Vision Research, 44, 1047 – 1063.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ben‐Yehudah, G., Sackett, E., Malchi‐Ginzberg, L., & Ahissar, M. (2001). Impaired temporal contrast sensitivity in dyslexics is specific to retain‐and‐compare paradigms. Brain, 124, 1381 – 1395.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berman, R. (1985). Acquisition of Hebrew. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The cross‐linguistic study of language acquisition (Vol. I, pp. 255 – 371). Lawrence Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berman, R. A. (1981). Regularity vs. anomaly: The acquisition of Hebrew inflectional morphology. Journal of Child Language, 8, 265 – 282.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bitan, T., Weiss, Y., Katzir, T., & Truzman, T. (2020). Morphological decomposition compensates for imperfections in phonological decoding. Neural evidence from typical and dyslexic readers of an opaque orthography. Cortex, 130, 172 – 191.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blasi, D. E., Henrich, J., Adamou, E., Kemmerer, D., & Majid, A. (2022). Over‐reliance on English hinders cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26 (12), 1153 – 1170.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bolozky, S. (1978). Some aspects of modern Hebrew phonology. In R. A. Berman (Ed.), Modern Hebrew structure (pp. 11 – 67). University Publishing Projects.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bosse, M. L., Tainturier, M. J., & Valdois, S. (2007). Developmental dyslexia: The visual attention span deficit hypothesis. Cognition, 104, 198 – 230.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bosse, M. L., & Valdois, S. (2009). Influence of the visual attention span on child reading performance: A cross‐sectional study. Journal of Research in Reading, 32, 230 – 253.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Breznitz, Z. (2001). The determinants of reading fluency: A comparison of dyslexic and average readers. In M. Wolf (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency and the brain (pp. 245 – 276). York Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Breznitz, Z. (2002). Asynchrony of visual‐orthographic and auditory‐phonological word recognition processes: An underlying factor in dyslexia. Reading and Writing, 15, 15 – 42.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Breznitz, Z., & Misra, M. (2003). Speed of processing of the visual–orthographic and auditory–phonological systems in adult dyslexics: The contribution of "asynchrony" to word recognition deficits. Brain and Language, 85, 486 – 502.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Canaan, O., & Share, D. L. (2007). Silent and oral word reading: How much do they have in common? Unpublished manuscript.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Castles, A., & Coltheart, M. (1993). Varieties of developmental dyslexia. Cognition, 47 (2), 149 – 180.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chase, C., & Stein, J. (2003). Visual magnocellular deficits in dyslexia. Brain, 126, e2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen‐Mimran, R. (2006). Temporal processing deficits in Hebrew speaking children with reading disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 127 – 137.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen‐Mimran, R. (2009). The contribution of language skills to reading fluency: A comparison of two orthographies for Hebrew. Journal of Child Language, 36 (3), 657 – 672.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen‐Mimran, R., Reznik‐Nevet, L., Gott, D., & Share, D. L. (2023). Preschool morphological awareness contributes to word reading at the very earliest stages of learning to read in a transparent orthography. Reading and Writing, 36 (7), 1845 – 1865.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conner, P. S. (2013). Novel spoken word learning in adults with developmental dyslexia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The City University of New York.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conway, C. M., & Christiansen, M. H. (2006). Statistical learning within and between modalities: Pitting abstract against stimulus‐specific representations. Psychological Science, 17, 905 – 912. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9280.2006.01801.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daikhin, L., Raviv, O., & Ahissar, M. (2017). Auditory stimulus processing and task learning are adequate in dyslexia, but benefits from regularities are reduced. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60 (2), 471 – 479.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daniels, P. T. (1990). Fundamentals of grammatology. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 110, 727 – 731.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daniels, P. T. (2018). An exploration of writing. Equinox.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daniels, P. T., & Bright, W. (Eds.). (1996). The world's writing systems. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Denckla, M. B., & Rudel, R. G. (1974). Rapid automatized naming (RAN) and rapid alternating stimulus (RAS) tests: A new procedure for assessing cognitive function in children. Neuropsychologia, 12 (3), 291 – 297.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Di Filippo, G., Zoccolotti, P., & Ziegler, J. C. (2008). Rapid naming deficits in dyslexia: A stumbling block for the perceptual anchor theory of dyslexia. Developmental Science, 11 (6), 40 – 47.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diringer, D. (1968). The alphabet: A key to the history of mankind (Vol. 1–2, 3rd ed.). Funk & Wagnalls.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eberhard, D. M., Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D. (Eds.). (2023). Ethnologue: Languages of the world (26th ed.). SIL International. Online version: <ulink href="http://www.ethnologue.com">http://www.ethnologue.com</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elbro, C., & Arnbak, E. (1996). The role of morpheme recognition and morphological awareness in dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 46, 209 – 240.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fostick, L., Bar‐El, S., & Ram‐Tsur, R. (2012a). Auditory temporal processing as a specific deficit among dyslexic readers. Online Submission, 2 (2), 77 – 88.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fostick, L., Bar‐El, S., & Ram‐Tsur, R. (2012b). Auditory temporal processing and working memory: Two independent deficits for dyslexia. Online Submission, 2 (5), 308 – 318.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fostick, L., Eshcoly, R., Shtibelman, H., Nehemia, R., & Levi, H. (2014). Efficacy of temporal processing training to improve phonological awareness among dyslexic and normal reading students. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40 (5), 1799 – 1807.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fostick, L., & Revah, H. (2018). Dyslexia as a multi‐deficit disorder: Working memory and auditory temporal processing. Acta Psychologica, 183, 19 – 28.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frankel, D. G., Amir, M., Frenkel, E., & Arbel, T. (1980). A developmental study of the role of word order in comprehending Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 29 (1), 23 – 35.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frost, R., Armstrong, B. C., & Christiansen, M. H. (2019). Statistical learning research: A critical review and possible new directions. Psychological Bulletin, 145 (12), 1128 – 1153.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frost, R., & Bentin, S. (1992). Processing phonological and semantic ambiguity: Evidence from semantic priming at different SOAs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18 (1), 58 – 68.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frost, R., Forster, K. I., & Deutsch, A. (1997). What can we learn from the morphology of Hebrew? A masked‐priming investigation of morphological representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23 (4), 829 – 856.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gabay, Y., Dundas, E., Plaut, D., & Behrmann, M. (2017). Atypical perceptual processing of faces in developmental dyslexia. Brain and Language, 173, 41 – 51.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gabay, Y., & Holt, L. L. (2015). Incidental learning of sound categories is impaired in developmental dyslexia. Cortex, 73, 131 – 143.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gabay, Y., Najjar, I. J., & Reinisch, E. (2019). Another temporal processing deficit in individuals with developmental dyslexia: The case of normalization for speaking rate. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 62 (7), 2171 – 2184.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gabay, Y., Schiff, R., & Vakil, E. (2012a). Attentional requirements during acquisition and consolidation of a skill in normal readers and developmental dyslexics. Neuropsychology, 26, 744 – 757.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gabay, Y., Schiff, R., & Vakil, E. (2012b). Dissociation between online and offline learning in developmental dyslexia. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 34, 279 – 288.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gabay, Y., Schiff, R., & Vakil, E. (2012c). Dissociation between the procedural learning of letter names and motor sequences in developmental dyslexia. Neuropsychologia, 50, 2435 – 2441.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gnanadesikan, A. E. (2017). Towards a typology of phonemic scripts. Writing Systems Research, 9 (1), 14 – 35.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldstein‐Marcusohn, Y., Goldfarb, L., & Shany, M. (2020). Global and local visual processing in rate/accuracy subtypes of dyslexia. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 523478.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gur, T. (2005). Reading Hebrew vowel diacritics: A longitudinal investigation from grade 1 to grade 3 (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Haifa.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haddad, L., Weiss, Y., Katzir, T., & Bitan, T. (2018). Orthographic transparency enhances morphological segmentation in children reading Hebrew words. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2369.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heth, I., & Lavidor, M. (2015). Improved reading measures in adults with dyslexia following transcranial direct current stimulation treatment. Neuropsychologia, 70, 107 – 113.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoberman, R. D., & Aronoff, M. (2003). The verb morphology of Maltese: From Semitic to romance. In J. Shimron (Ed.), Language processing and language acquisition in root‐based Semitic, morphology (pp. 61 – 78). John Benjamins.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horowitz‐Kraus, T., Rosch, K., Fotang, J., Mostofsky, S. H., Schlaggar, B. L., Pekar, J., Taran, N., & Farah, R. (2023). Fluent contextual reading is associated with greater synchronization of the visual and auditory networks, fluent reading and better speed of processing in children with dyslexia. Cortex, 168, 62 – 75.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huettig, F., & Ferreira, F. (2023). The myth of normal reading. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18 (4), 863 – 870.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Illingworth, S., & Bishop, D. V. (2009). Atypical cerebral lateralisation in adults with compensated developmental dyslexia demonstrated using functional transcranial Doppler ultrasound. Brain and Language, 111 (1), 61 – 65.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kadosh, M., Shechter, A., & Share, D. L. (in preparation). Cognitive effort in dyslexic word reading through the lens of pupillometry.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kahta, S., & Schiff, R. (2016). Implicit learning deficits among adults with developmental dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 6, 235 – 250.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kahta, S., & Schiff, R. (2019). Deficits in statistical leaning of auditory sequences among adults with dyslexia. Dyslexia, 25 (2), 142 – 157.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Katan, P., Kahta, S., Sasson, A., & Schiff, R. (2017). Performance of children with developmental dyslexia on high and low topological entropy artificial grammar learning task. Annals of Dyslexia, 67, 163 – 179.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Katzir, T., Schiff, R., & Kim, Y. S. (2012). The effects of orthographic consistency on reading development: A within and between cross‐linguistic study of fluency and accuracy among fourth grade English‐and Hebrew‐speaking children. Learning and Individual Differences, 22 (6), 673 – 679.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kimel, E., & Ahissar, M. (2020). Benefits from morphological regularities in dyslexia are task dependent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46 (1), 155 – 169.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kligler, N., Yu, C., & Gabay, Y. (2023). Reduced implicit but not explicit knowledge of cross‐situational statistical learning in developmental dyslexia. Cognitive Science, 47 (9), e13325.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kogan, N., & Saiegh‐Haddad, E. (2023). The internal structure of the syllable in Russian and in Hebrew: Evidence from monolingual kindergarteners. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 44 (1), 101 – 129.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kozminsky, L., & Kozminsky, E. (1995). The effects of early phonological awareness training on reading success. Learning and Instruction, 5 (3), 187 – 201.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Meisinger, E. B. (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45 (2), 230 – 251.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6 (2), 293 – 323.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lapidot, M., Tubul, G., & Wohl, A. (1995). Mivchan eranut fonologit kekli nibui lerechishat hakri'a [A test of phonological awareness as a predictor of reading acquisition]. Chelkat Lashon, 19–20, 169 – 188. [In Hebrew].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lehmkuhle, S., Garzia, R. P., Turner, L., Hash, T., & Baro, J. A. (1993). A defective visual pathway in children with reading disability. New England Journal of Medicine, 328 (14), 989 – 996.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leikin, M., & Even Zur, H. (2006). Morphological processing in adult dyslexia. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35, 471 – 490.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levin, I., Share, D., & Shatil, E. (1996). A qualitative‐quantitative study of preschool writing: Its development and contribution to school literacy. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdale (Eds.), The sciences of writing: Theories, method, individual differences and application (pp. 271 – 293). Lawrence Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levy, Y. (1980). The acquisition of gender. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Hebrew University. [in Hebrew].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lifshitz‐Ben‐Basat, A., & Fostick, L. (2019). Music‐related abilities among readers with dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 69, 318 – 334.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Livingstone, M. S., Rosen, G. D., Drislane, F. W., & Galaburda, A. M. (1991). Physiological and anatomical evidence for a magnocellular defect in developmental dyslexia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 88 (18), 7943 – 7947.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Logan, G. D. (1997). Automaticity and reading: Perspectives from the instance theory of automatization. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 13 (2), 123 – 146.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lovegrove, W., Martin, F., & Slaghuis, W. (1986). A theoretical and experimental case for a visual deficit in specific reading disability. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 3 (2), 225 – 267.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lovegrove, W. J., Bowling, A., Badcock, D., & Blackwood, M. (1980). Specific reading disability: Differences in contrast sensitivity as a function of spatial frequency. Science, 210 (4468), 439 – 440.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCarthy, J. J. (1981). A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 373 – 418.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Megherbi, H., Elbro, C., Oakhill, J., Segui, J., & New, B. (2018). The emergence of automaticity in reading: Effects of orthographic depth and word decoding ability on an adjusted Stroop measure. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 166, 652 – 663.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Menashe, S. (2018). Spatial selective attention and asynchrony of cognitive systems in adult dyslexic readers: An ERPs and behavioral study. Annals of Dyslexia, 68, 145 – 164.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mizrachi. (2024 ; Mizrachi). Methods of teaching reading in first grade Hebrew‐speaking classrooms in Israel Unpublished MA dissertation. Universty of Haifa.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moors, A., & De Houwer, J. (2006). Automaticity: A theoretical and conceptual analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 297 – 326.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9 (3), 353 – 383.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nevo, E., & Breznitz, Z. (2011). Assessment of working memory components at 6 years of age as predictors of reading achievements a year later. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109 (1), 73 – 90.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oganian, Y., & Ahissar, M. (2012). Poor anchoring limits dyslexics' perceptual, memory, and reading skills. Neuropsychologia, 50, 1895 – 1905.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti, C., & Helder, A. (2022). Progress in reading science: Word identification, 101 comprehension, and universal perspectives. In M. J. Snowling, C. Hulme, & K. Nation (Eds.), The science of Reading: A handbook (pp. 5 – 35). WileyBlackwell.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti, C. A., & Harris, L. N. (2013). Universal reading processes are modulated by language and writing system. Language Learning and Development, 9 (4), 296 – 316.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ram‐Tsur, R., Faust, M., & Zivotofsky, A. Z. (2006). Sequential processing deficits of reading disabled persons is independent of inter‐stimulus interval. Vision Research, 46 (22), 3949 – 3960.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raveh, M., & Schiff, R. (2008). Visual and auditory morphological priming in adults with developmental dyslexia. Scientifc Studies of Reading, 12 (3), 221 – 252.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ravid, D. (1990). Internal structure constraints on new‐word formation devices in modern Hebrew. Folia Linguistica, 24, 289 – 346.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ravid, D. (1995). Language change in child and adult Hebrew: A psycholinguistic perspective. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ravid, D. (1996). Accessing the mental lexicon: Evidence from incompatibility between representation of spoken and written morphology. Linguistics, 34, 1219 – 1246.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ravid, D. (1997). Morphological development a duo: Pre‐ and proto‐morphology in the language of Hebrew‐speaking twins. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, 33, 79 – 102.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ravid, D. (2001). Learning to spell in Hebrew: Phonological and morphological factors. Reading and Writing, 14, 459 – 485.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ravid, D. (2006). Hebrew orthography and literacy. In R. M. Joshi & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 339 – 365). Lawrence Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ravid, D. (2012). Spelling morphology. Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schiff, R. (2003). The effects of morphology and word length on the reading of Hebrew nominals. Reading and Writing, 16 (4), 263 – 287.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schiff, R., Cohen, M., Ben‐Artzi, S. A., & Ravid, D. (2016). Auditory morphological knowledge among children with developmental dyslexia. Scientific Studies of Reading, 20, 140 – 154.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schiff, R., Kahta, S., & Sasson, A. (2022). Modality effects in the representation of the root morpheme in the mental lexicon of Hebrew‐speaking adults with dyslexia. In Developing language and literacy: Studies in honor of Dorit Diskin Ravid (pp. 627 – 637). Springer International Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schiff, R., Katan, P., Sasson, A., & Kahta, S. (2017). Effect of chunk strength on the performance of children with developmental dyslexia on artificial grammar learning task may be related to complexity. Annals of Dyslexia, 67, 1 – 20.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schiff, R., & Raveh, M. (2007). Defcient morphological processing in adults with developmental dyslexia: Another barrier to effcient word recognition? Dyslexia, 13 (2), 110 – 129.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schiff, R., & Ravid, D. (2004). Representing written vowels in university students with dyslexia compared with normal Hebrew readers. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 39 – 64.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schiff, R., & Ravid, D. (2007). Morphological analogies in Hebrew‐speaking university students with dyslexia compared with typically developing grade schoolers. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 36, 237 – 253.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schiff, R., & Ravid, D. (2013). Morphological processing in Hebrew‐speaking students with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 220 – 229.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schiff, R., Sasson, A., Star, G., & Kahta, S. (2017). The role of feedback in implicit and explicit artificial grammar learning: A comparison between dyslexic and non‐dyslexic adults. Annals of Dyslexia, 67, 333 – 355.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schiff, R., Schwartz‐Nahshon, S., & Nagar, R. (2011). Effect of phonological and morphological awareness on reading comprehension in Hebrew‐speaking adolescents with reading disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia, 61, 44 – 63.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmalz, X., Moll, K., Mulatti, C., & Schulte‐Körne, G. (2019). Is statistical learning ability related to reading ability, and if so, why? Scientific Studies of Reading, 23 (1), 64 – 76.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwarzwald, O. R. (2002). Modern Hebrew morphology. Open University. [In Hebrew].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sela, I. (2014). Visual and auditory synchronization deficits among dyslexic readers as compared to non‐impaired readers: A cross‐correlation algorithm analysis. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 364.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sela, I., & Karni, A. (2012). Differences in learning volitional (manual) and non‐volitional (posture) aspects of a complex motor skill in young adult dyslexic and skilled readers. PLoS One, 7 (9), e43488.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shalev‐Leifer, C. (2016). On the link between developmental dyslexia and specific language impairment in Hebrew: Cognitive and psycholinguistic aspects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Haifa.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shalhoub‐Awwad, Y., & Cohen‐Mimran, R. (2024). On the role of morphology in early spelling in Hebrew and Arabic. Morphology, 34, 151 – 172.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shany, M., Asadi, I., & Share, D. L. (2023). Accuracy‐disability versus rate‐disability subtypes of dyslexia: A validation study in Arabic. Scientific Studies of Reading, 27 (2), 136 – 159.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shany, M., Bar‐On, A., & Katzir, T. (2012). Reading different orthographic structures in the shallow‐pointed Hebrew script: A cross‐grade study in elementary school. Reading and Writing, 25, 1217 – 1238.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shany, M., & Breznitz, Z. (2011). Rate‐and accuracy‐disabled subtype profiles among adults with dyslexia in the Hebrew orthography. Developmental Neuropsychology, 36 (7), 889 – 913.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shany, M., & Share, D. L. (2011). Subtypes of reading disability in a shallow orthography: A double dissociation between accuracy‐disabled and rate‐disabled readers of Hebrew. Annals of Dyslexia, 61, 64 – 84.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share, D. L. (2003). Dyslexia in Hebrew. In N. Goulandris (Ed.), Dyslexia in different languages: Cross‐linguistic comparisons (pp. 208 – 234). Whurr.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share, D. L. (2008). On the Anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: The perils of overreliance on an" outlier" orthography. Psychological Bulletin, 134 (4), 584 – 615.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share, D. L. (2017). Learning to read Hebrew. In L. Verhoeven & C. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read across languages and writing systems (pp. 127 – 154). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share, D. L. (2021). Is the science of reading just the science of reading English? Reading Research Quarterly, 56, S391 – S402.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share, D. L., & Bar‐On, A. (2018). Learning to read a Semitic abjad: The triplex model of Hebrew Reading development. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51 (5), 444 – 453.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share, D. L., & Blum, P. (2005). Syllable splitting in literate and preliterate Hebrew speakers: Onsets and rimes or bodies and codas? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92 (2), 182 – 202.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share, D. L., & Levin, I. (1999). Learning to read and write in Hebrew. In M. Harris & G. Hatano (Eds.), Learning to read and write (pp. 89 – 111). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share, D. L., Shany, M., & Lipka, O. (2019). Developmental dyslexia in Hebrew. Developmental Dyslexia Across Languages and Writing Systems, 152 – 175.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shatil, E., & Share, D. L. (2003). Cognitive antecedents of early reading ability: A test of the modularity hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 86, 1 – 31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shaul, S. (2013). Asynchrony of cerebral systems activated during word recognition: Comparison of dyslexic and typical readers. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience, 12 (2), 259 – 283.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shaul, S. (2014). Visual, auditory and cross modal lexical decision: A comparison between dyslexic and typical readers. Psychology, 5 (16), 1855 – 1869.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shechter, A., Hershman, R., & Share, D. L. (2022). A pupillometric study of developmental and individual differences in cognitive effort in visual word recognition. Scientific Reports, 12 (1), 10764.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shechter, A., Lipka, O., & Katzir, T. (2018). Predictive models of word reading fluency in hebrew. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1882.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shechter, A., & Share, D. L. (2021). Keeping an eye on effort: A pupillometric investigation of effort and effortlessness in visual word recognition. Psychological Science, 32 (1), 80 – 95.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shimron, J. (1993). The role of vowels in reading: A review of studies of English and Hebrew. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 52 – 67.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shimron, J. (2006). 6 the evolution of the Hebrew writing system. In J. Shimron (Ed.), Reading Hebrew—The language and the psychology of Reading it (pp. 124 – 137). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shulver, K. D., & Badcock, N. A. (2021). Chasing the anchor: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of perceptual anchoring deficits in developmental dyslexia. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 64 (8), 3289 – 3302.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive‐compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32 – 71.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stanovich, K. E. (1990). Concepts in developmental theories of reading skill: Cognitive resources, automaticity, and modularity. Developmental Review, 10, 72 – 100.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stein, J. (2001). The magnocellular theory of developmental dyslexia. Dyslexia, 7 (1), 12 – 36.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stein, J., & Walsh, V. (1997). To see but not to read; the magnocellular theory of dyslexia. Trends in Neurosciences, 20 (4), 147 – 152.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tadmor‐Troyansky & Share. (submitted). Phonological Awareness in the Hebrew Abjad: Consonants, Vowels and Core Units.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tallal, P. (1980). Auditory temporal perception, phonics, and reading disabilities in children. Brain and Language, 9, 182 – 198.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tolchinsky, L., Levin, I., Aram, D., & McBride‐Chang, C. (2012). Building literacy in alphabetic, abjad and morphosyllabic systems. Reading and Writing, 25, 1573 – 1598.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tolchinsky‐Landsmann, L., & Levin, I. (1985). Writing in preschoolers: An age‐related analysis. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 6 (3), 319 – 339.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Treiman, R., & Kessler, B. (2022). Statistical learning in word reading and spelling across languages and writing systems. Scientific Studies of Reading, 26 (2), 139 – 149.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaknin‐Nusbaum, V. (2021). Morphological awareness: A tool to promote reading fluency and accuracy in Hebrew in students with reading disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 36 (1), 26 – 39.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaknin‐Nusbaum, V. (2024). Morphological density and reading comprehension in Hebrew novice readers. Reading and Writing, 1 – 23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐024‐10526‐7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaknin‐Nusbaum, V., & Raveh, M. (2019). Cultivating morphological awareness improves reading skills in fifth‐grade Hebrew readers. The Journal of Educational Research, 112 (3), 357 – 366.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaknin‐Nusbaum, V., & Sarid, M. (2021). The role of morphological awareness in the development of reading comprehension in Hebrew‐speaking second‐graders. Reading and Writing, 34 (10), 2645 – 2671.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaknin‐Nusbaum, V., Sarid, M., & Shimron, J. (2016). Morphological awareness and reading in second and fifth grade: Evidence from Hebrew. Reading and Writing, 29, 229 – 244.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valdois, S., Bosse, M. L., & Tainturier, M. J. (2004). The cognitive deficits responsible for developmental dyslexia: Review of evidence for a selective visual attentional disorder. Dyslexia, 10, 339 – 363.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Witteloostuijn, M., Boersma, P., Wijnen, F., & Rispens, J. (2017). Visual artificial grammar learning in dyslexia: A meta‐analysis. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 70, 126 – 137.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verhoeven, L., Nag, S., Perfetti, C., & Pugh, K. (Eds.). (2023). Global variation in literacy development. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verhoeven, L., & Perfetti, C. (2022). Universals in learning to read across languages and writing systems. Scientific Studies of Reading, 26 (2), 150 – 164.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weinbach, N., & Henik, A. (2011). Phasic alertness can modulate executive control by enhancing global processing of visual stimuli. Cognition, 121 (3), 454 – 458.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weiss, O., Share, D. L., & Shany, M. (2020). The ran deficit among readers with a selective deficit in Reading rate: A domain‐general or a domain‐specific processing speed deficit? Doctoral dissertation. University of Haifa (Israel).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> West, G., Vadillo, M. A., Shanks, D. R., & Hulme, C. (2018). The procedural learning deficit hypothesis of language learning disorders: We see some problems. Developmental Science, 21 (2), e12552.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Willburger, E., & Landerl, K. (2010). Anchoring the deficit of the anchor deficit: Dyslexia or attention? Dyslexia, 16, 175 – 182.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolf, M., & Katzir‐Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5 (3), 211 – 239.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yeari, M., Isser, M., & Schiff, R. (2017). Do dyslexic individuals present a reduced visual attention span? Evidence from visual recognition tasks of non‐verbal multi‐character arrays. Annals of Dyslexia, 67, 128 – 146.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yeivin, I., & Revell, E. J. (1980). Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah. Missoula, Montana : Scholars Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yinon, R., & Shaul, S. (2024). Examining the developmental trade‐off between phonology and morphology in Hebrew reading acquisition. Reading and Writing, 1 – 25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ziegler, J. C. (2008). Better to lose the anchor than the whole ship. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 244 – 245.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Adi Shechter and David L. Share</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Adi Shechter is a post‐doctoral scholar at the Edmond J. Safra Brain Research Center for the Study of Learning Disabilities, The University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel. email:</p> <p>David L. Share (corresponding author) is a Full Professor in the Faculty of Education, The University of Haifa, 199 Abba, Khoushy Ave, 3498838 Haifa, Israel. email:</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib137" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib139" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib169" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib140" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib157" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib143" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib109" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib115" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib138" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib163" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib113" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib110" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib112" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib177" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib127" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib150" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib114" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib133" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib151" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib144" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib159" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib170" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib142" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib141" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib160" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib148" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib131" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib178" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib166" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib165" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib116" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib164" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib162" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib136" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib111" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib125" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib117" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib121" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib122" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib123" firstref="ref138"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib130" firstref="ref141"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib108" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib118" firstref="ref148"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib120" firstref="ref151"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref152"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib153" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref156"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref157"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref159"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref160"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref161"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref162"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib128" firstref="ref164"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl96" bibid="bib145" firstref="ref165"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl97" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref166"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl98" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref167"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl99" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref168"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl100" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref169"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl101" bibid="bib155" firstref="ref170"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl102" bibid="bib156" firstref="ref171"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl103" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref172"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl104" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref173"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl105" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref174"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl106" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref176"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl107" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref178"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl108" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref179"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl109" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref180"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl110" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref181"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl111" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref182"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl112" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref185"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl113" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref188"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl114" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref189"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl115" bibid="bib154" firstref="ref191"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl116" bibid="bib175" firstref="ref192"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl117" bibid="bib149" firstref="ref193"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl118" bibid="bib147" firstref="ref195"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl119" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref196"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl120" bibid="bib176" firstref="ref197"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl121" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref198"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl122" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref199"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl123" bibid="bib167" firstref="ref200"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl124" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref201"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl125" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref203"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl126" bibid="bib119" firstref="ref204"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl127" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref208"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl128" bibid="bib126" firstref="ref209"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl129" bibid="bib161" firstref="ref210"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl130" bibid="bib168" firstref="ref211"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl131" bibid="bib173" firstref="ref212"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl132" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref213"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl133" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref214"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl134" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref215"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl135" bibid="bib124" firstref="ref217"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl136" bibid="bib158" firstref="ref223"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl137" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref224"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl138" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref225"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl139" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref226"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl140" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref227"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl141" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref228"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl142" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref229"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl143" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref230"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl144" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref231"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl145" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref242"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl146" bibid="bib152" firstref="ref243"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl147" bibid="bib179" firstref="ref245"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl148" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref246"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl149" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref247"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl150" bibid="bib174" firstref="ref248"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl151" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref249"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl152" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref250"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl153" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref251"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl154" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref254"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl155" bibid="bib129" firstref="ref255"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl156" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref257"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl157" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref258"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl158" bibid="bib134" firstref="ref259"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl159" bibid="bib135" firstref="ref260"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl160" bibid="bib132" firstref="ref261"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl161" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref262"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl162" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref265"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl163" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref267"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl164" bibid="bib171" firstref="ref268"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl165" bibid="bib172" firstref="ref269"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl166" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref270"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl167" bibid="bib146" firstref="ref271"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1458530
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Learning to Read and Developmental Dyslexia in Hebrew
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Adi+Shechter%22">Adi Shechter</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22David+L%2E+Share%22">David L. Share</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+Research+Quarterly%22"><i>Reading Research Quarterly</i></searchLink>. 2025 60(1).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Dyslexia%22">Dyslexia</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Hebrew%22">Hebrew</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Instruction%22">Reading Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comorbidity%22">Comorbidity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Writing+Relationship%22">Reading Writing Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Disabilities%22">Learning Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Neurological+Organization%22">Neurological Organization</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Acquisition%22">Language Acquisition</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/rrq.599
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0034-0553<br />1936-2722
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The study of Hebrew, a non-European language written in a non-alphabetic (abjadic) script offers valuable insights into the science of reading beyond the well-studied alphabetic scripts. Because reading development in Hebrew is shaped by the uniquely Semitic root-and-pattern morphology and the abjadic (predominantly consonantal) orthography, our review begins by providing some basic information about the Hebrew language and its writing system. We then outline the developmental phases through which the developing Hebrew reader progresses, as proposed in Share and Bar-On's Triplex Model, and the central role of phonological and morphological awareness. Finally, we review the research literature on developmental dyslexia in Hebrew within the context of current theories on the underlying perceptual/neurobiological basis of dyslexia (e.g., temporal processing, magnocellular deficits, visual attention span etc.). Here, we draw attention to the problems of comorbidity and the need to go beyond the conventional "whole-group" approach and address the issue of heterogeneity and subtypes.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1458530
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1458530
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/rrq.599
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Dyslexia
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Hebrew
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Comorbidity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Writing Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Neurological Organization
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Acquisition
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Learning to Read and Developmental Dyslexia in Hebrew
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Adi Shechter
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: David L. Share
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0034-0553
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1936-2722
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 60
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Reading Research Quarterly
              Type: main
ResultId 1