Table 3.

Phonological dyslexics with neuroanatomically described lesions

Original source	Sbj	Lesion	Prod	Words		Nonwords			Letters
				rep	read	rep	read	err	Read	snd
Bradley and Thompson (34)	PM	F	Fluent		91%	OK	13%	W	77%	0%
Caramazza et al. (35)	LB	F	Mild imp	OK	100%	93%	71%	N
Sasanuma et al. (36)	TY	F	Mild imp	100%	93%	86%	40%	W		82%
Denes et al. (37)	ML	F+P	Imp	80%	94%	50%	30%	W	100%	8%
Bub et al. (38)	MV	F+P	Mild imp		92%		23%	W		93%
Patterson (32)	AM	F+P+T	Mild imp	OK	≈95%	83%	≈15%	W
Friedman (39)	MS	F+T	Fluent	OK	85%		15%	W	100%
Friedman and Kohn (40)	HR	P+T	Fluent	68%	87%	87%	7%	N
Friedman (39)	BR	P+T	Fluent	100%	98%	87%	61%	W?	100%
Bisiacchi et al. (41)	RR	P+T	Fluent	98%	97%	100%	63%	N	100%	100%
Beauvois and Derousense (33)	RG	P+T+O	Fluent	100%	100%	83%	26%		87%
Cuetos et al. (42)	AD	P+O	Fluent	100%	93%	100%	35%	N		95%
Derouesne and Beauvois (43)	JA	T	Fluent	100%	100%		53%
Caramazza et al. (35)	AG	T	Fluent		98%		69%	N

For each case report (listed by original source and subject initials), the location of the lesion is described (F, frontal; P, parietal; T, temporal; and O, occipital; with the exception of left-handed subject AM, all lesions were in the left hemisphere), along with the speech production (Prod) characteristics of the subject [fluent, mildly impaired (mild imp), or impaired (imp)]. Word repetition (rep) and reading (read) accuracy is listed, followed by nonword repetition and reading accuracy, along with a notation of whether the subject’s nonword reading errors (err) were predominantly real words (W) or nonwords (N). Finally, accuracy at reading (read) and sounding out (sound) individual letters is listed. Blank cells indicate that the relevant data were not available in the original