Performance IQ for all four groups is presented in Table 1. For the age-matched

comparison, a second analysis was performed in a subset of individuals matched on performance IQ (n = 6) to ensure that any observed differences were independent of the IQ difference. Twenty-two children with dyslexia (nine females; ages 7.4–12.0 years) participated in three scanning sessions, the first prior to the beginning of any intervention, and the second and third after two 8 week periods. All subjects were within or above the normal range for intelligence (WASI full-scale IQ: range: 98–124; mean ± SD: 109 ± click here 8). Prior to the intervention reading and reading related scores were as follows: real word reading WJ-III WID: range: 62–93; mean ± SD: 79 ± 7.7, pseudoword reading (WJ-III WA): range: 77–109; mean ± SD: 93 ± 6.3, and phonemic awareness scores (LAC-3): range: 87–115; mean ± SD: 100 ± 7.5. Based on random assignment, some subjects underwent reading intervention during the first 8 week period, followed by the math intervention during the second 8 week period (n = 8); a second group received a math intervention first, followed by the reading intervention Selleck PFI-2 (n = 6); the third group received the reading intervention followed by no intervention (n = 8). For the analysis,

the periods of no intervention and math intervention were combined into a control period to provide a control comparison for the periods during which the tuclazepam same children received the reading intervention. We used an fMRI

task involving coherent motion detection (Motion) to examine activity in area V5/MT. During this task, subjects maintained central fixation while viewing a set of low-contrast dots moving in various directions on a black background, with 40% coherence in the horizontal direction. Task difficulty was set at a level to ensure good performance by all subjects in all three experiments, thereby avoiding performance differences between dyslexic and controls (Experiment 2) that can obscure the interpretation of the between-group differences of fMRI data (Price and Friston, 2002; Price et al., 2006). Via button press, subjects were asked to indicate the direction of motion. A control condition involved presentation of static dots (Static), during which subjects performed a density judgment on the left and right visual field, while maintaining central fixation. Density contrast between hemifields varied from 35% to 65%. Stimuli were presented using a block design paradigm. Motion and Static blocks were separated by intervening passive Fixation periods that lasted 18 s each, and during which a cross-hair was presented in the center of the screen.