| Title |
Too little or too much? Parafoveal preview benefits and parafoveal load costs in dyslexic adults
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Dyslexia, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11881-015-0113-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Susana Silva, Luís Faísca, Susana Araújo, Luis Casaca, Loide Carvalho, Karl Magnus Petersson, Alexandra Reis |
| Abstract |
Two different forms of parafoveal dysfunction have been hypothesized as core deficits of dyslexic individuals: reduced parafoveal preview benefits ("too little parafovea") and increased costs of parafoveal load ("too much parafovea"). We tested both hypotheses in a single eye-tracking experiment using a modified serial rapid automatized naming (RAN) task. Comparisons between dyslexic and non-dyslexic adults showed reduced parafoveal preview benefits in dyslexics, without increased costs of parafoveal load. Reduced parafoveal preview benefits were observed in a naming task, but not in a silent letter-finding task, indicating that the parafoveal dysfunction may be consequent to the overload with extracting phonological information from orthographic input. Our results suggest that dyslexics' parafoveal dysfunction is not based on strict visuo-attentional factors, but nevertheless they stress the importance of extra-phonological processing. Furthermore, evidence of reduced parafoveal preview benefits in dyslexia may help understand why serial RAN is an important reading predictor in adulthood. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Portugal | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 58 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 22% |
| Researcher | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 18% |
| Unknown | 8 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 20 | 33% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 12% |
| Linguistics | 5 | 8% |
| Arts and Humanities | 4 | 7% |
| Engineering | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Unknown | 11 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 29 September 2015.
All research outputs
#17,774,112
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Dyslexia
#199
of 247 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,060
of 274,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Dyslexia
#7
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 247 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 274,809 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.