↓ Skip to main content

Reading Proficiency and Adaptability in Orthographic Processing: An Examination of the Effect of Type of Orthography Read on Brain Activity in Regular and Dyslexic Readers

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Reading Proficiency and Adaptability in Orthographic Processing: An Examination of the Effect of Type of Orthography Read on Brain Activity in Regular and Dyslexic Readers
Published in
PLOS ONE, January 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0086016
Pubmed ID
Authors

Irit Bar-Kochva, Zvia Breznitz

Abstract

Regular readers were found to adjust the routine of reading to the demands of processing imposed by different orthographies. Dyslexic readers may lack such adaptability in reading. This hypothesis was tested among readers of Hebrew, as Hebrew has two forms of script differing in phonological transparency. Event-related potentials were recorded from 24 regular and 24 dyslexic readers while they carried out a lexical decision task in these two forms of script. The two forms of script elicited distinct amplitudes and latencies at ∼165 ms after target onset, and these effects were larger in regular than in dyslexic readers. These early effects appeared not to be merely a result of the visual difference between the two forms of script (the presence of diacritics). The next effect of form of script was obtained on amplitudes elicited at latencies associated with orthographic-lexical processing and the categorization of stimuli, and these appeared earlier in regular readers (∼340 ms) than in dyslexic readers (∼400 ms). The behavioral measures showed inferior reading skills of dyslexic readers compared to regular readers in reading of both forms of script. Taken together, the results suggest that although dyslexic readers are not indifferent to the type of orthography read, they fail to adjust the routine of reading to the demands of processing imposed by both a transparent and an opaque orthography.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 5%
Unknown 35 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 19%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Master 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Student > Bachelor 1 3%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 11 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 32%
Sports and Recreations 2 5%
Linguistics 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Computer Science 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 11 30%
Attention Score in Context

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 02 December 2014.
All research outputs
#20,487,260
of 25,182,110 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#178,322
of 218,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,648
of 319,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#4,260
of 5,577 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,182,110 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 218,310 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 319,413 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,577 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.