Stanford University researchers have recently discovered hope for people with dyslexia. The researchers reported that an intensive eight-week learning program helped remedy reading problems among 20 dyslexic children between the ages of eight and 12.

Elise Temple, lead writer of the study and assistant professor at Cornell University, said proper training designed to help children understand rapid language sounds is pinnacle to helping people overcome dyslexia.

“The most important finding of the study is that brain dysfunction in dyslexia, which has been shown [to occur] in other studies, can actually be changed and made better to a large degree with a training program that is dealing with their behavior and their reading,” Temple said.

Researchers tested for brain activity during language use through magnetic resonance imaging to scan the brains of 20 dyslexic children aged eight to 12, as well as a dozen normal children.

Stanford psychology professor John Gabrieli said that although the study didn’t find a cure for dyslexia, it offered some insight on the importance of reading.

“This program didn’t teach children to read,” Gabrieli said, “but it builds that base, then they [can go on and] read.”

Gabrieli said there are misguided ideas about dyslexia.

“Most people think [dyslexia] is a visual problem, but it’s auditory,” Gabrieli said.

He said people with dyslexia cannot differentiate between certain rapid sounds.

According to Gabrieli, the study showed students involved in reading programs showed improvement in reading ability and an increase in brain activity.

Dyslexic children generally show an absence of brain activity in the left side of the brain, Gabrieli said. After participating in the program, children showed much more activity in the left side of the brain as well as the right side, he said.

Scientific Learning, a private company, wrote the largely computer-based reading program for children with dyslexia, called Fast ForWord.

Some believe an advantage of a computer-based program is its minimal cost, however, because the program is primarily available in affluent markets where skilled teachers are available. Critics say this impedes the program’s availability in low-income neighborhoods that don’t have the tools or faculty to deliver the program.