| Title |
Statistical learning and dyslexia: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Dyslexia, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11881-016-0136-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xenia Schmalz, Gianmarco Altoè, Claudio Mulatti |
| Abstract |
The existing literature on developmental dyslexia (hereafter: dyslexia) often focuses on isolating cognitive skills which differ across dyslexic and control participants. Among potential correlates, previous research has studied group differences between dyslexic and control participants in performance on statistical learning tasks. A statistical learning deficit has been proposed to be a potential cause and/or a marker effect for early detection of dyslexia. It is therefore of practical importance to evaluate the evidence for a group difference. From a theoretical perspective, such a group difference would provide information about the causal chain from statistical learning to reading acquisition. We provide a systematic review of the literature on such a group difference. We conclude that there is insufficient high-quality data to draw conclusions about the presence or absence of an effect. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 33% |
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 169 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 169 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 42 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 23 | 14% |
| Researcher | 17 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 7% |
| Professor | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 26 | 15% |
| Unknown | 40 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 58 | 34% |
| Neuroscience | 16 | 9% |
| Linguistics | 12 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 11% |
| Unknown | 45 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 October 2016.
All research outputs
#15,394,559
of 24,404,997 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Dyslexia
#171
of 263 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,064
of 320,976 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Dyslexia
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,404,997 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 263 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,976 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.