↓ Skip to main content

Colors, colored overlays, and reading skills

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
34 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
188 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
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
Colors, colored overlays, and reading skills
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00833
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arcangelo Uccula, Mauro Enna, Claudio Mulatti

Abstract

In this article, we are concerned with the role of colors in reading written texts. It has been argued that colored overlays applied above written texts positively influence both reading fluency and reading speed. These effects would be particularly evident for those individuals affected by the so called Meares-Irlen syndrome, i.e., who experience eyestrain and/or visual distortions - e.g., color, shape, or movement illusions - while reading. This condition would interest the 12-14% of the general population and up to the 46% of the dyslexic population. Thus, colored overlays have been largely employed as a remedy for some aspects of the difficulties in reading experienced by dyslexic individuals, as fluency and speed. Despite the wide use of colored overlays, how they exert their effects has not been made clear yet. Also, according to some researchers, the results supporting the efficacy of colored overlays as a tool for helping readers are at least controversial. Furthermore, the very nature of the Meares-Irlen syndrome has been questioned. Here we provide a concise, critical review of the literature.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 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 188 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
United States 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 183 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 25 13%
Student > Master 22 12%
Researcher 19 10%
Student > Postgraduate 19 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 8%
Other 44 23%
Unknown 44 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 42 22%
Social Sciences 20 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 9%
Neuroscience 14 7%
Computer Science 8 4%
Other 39 21%
Unknown 48 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. 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 14 June 2022.
All research outputs
#1,008,621
of 25,571,620 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#2,111
of 34,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,646
of 240,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#45
of 386 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,571,620 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,658 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
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 240,141 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 386 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.