↓ Skip to main content

Temporal sampling in vision and the implications for dyslexia

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 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
Temporal sampling in vision and the implications for dyslexia
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00933
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristen Pammer

Abstract

It has recently been suggested that dyslexia may manifest as a deficit in the neural synchrony underlying language-based codes (Goswami, 2011), such that the phonological deficits apparent in dyslexia occur as a consequence of poor synchronisation of oscillatory brain signals to the sounds of language. There is compelling evidence to support this suggestion, and it provides an intriguing new development in understanding the aetiology of dyslexia. It is undeniable that dyslexia is associated with poor phonological coding, however, reading is also a visual task, and dyslexia has also been associated with poor visual coding, particularly visuo-spatial sensitivity. It has been hypothesized for some time that specific frequency oscillations underlie visual perception. Although little research has been done looking specifically at dyslexia and cortical frequency oscillations, it is possible to draw on converging evidence from visual tasks to speculate that similar deficits could occur in temporal frequency oscillations in the visual domain in dyslexia. Thus, here the plausibility of a visual correlate of the Temporal Sampling Framework is considered, leading to specific hypotheses and predictions for future research. A common underlying neural mechanism in dyslexia, may subsume qualitatively different manifestations of reading difficulty, which is consistent with the heterogeneity of the disorder, and may open the door for a new generation of exciting research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 3%
Netherlands 1 1%
United States 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 93 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 19%
Student > Master 16 16%
Researcher 14 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 22 22%
Unknown 14 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 26 26%
Neuroscience 23 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 7%
Linguistics 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 22 22%
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 October 2016.
All research outputs
#15,294,762
of 22,745,803 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,259
of 7,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,979
of 305,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#89
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,745,803 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,136 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 305,223 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.