↓ Skip to main content

Individualized Early Prediction of Familial Risk of Dyslexia: A Study of Infant Vocabulary Development

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
71 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
Individualized Early Prediction of Familial Risk of Dyslexia: A Study of Infant Vocabulary Development
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00156
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ao Chen, Frank Wijnen, Charlotte Koster, Hugo Schnack

Abstract

We examined early vocabulary development in children at familial risk (FR) of dyslexia and typically developing (TD) children between 17 and 35 months of age. We trained a support vector machine to classify TD and FR using these vocabulary data at the individual level. The Dutch version of the McArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory (Words and Sentences) (N-CDI) was used to measure vocabulary development. We analyzed group-level differences for both total vocabulary as well as lexical classes: common nouns, predicates, and closed class words. The generalizability of the classification model was tested using cross-validation. At the group level, for both total vocabulary and the composites, the difference between TD and FR was most pronounced at 19-20 months, with FRs having lower scores. For the individual prediction, highest cross-validation accuracy (68%) was obtained at 19-20 months, with sensitivity (correctly classified FR) being 70% and specificity (correctly classified TD) being 67%. There is a sensitive window in which the difference between FR and TD is most evident. Machine learning methods are promising techniques for separating FR and TD children at an early age, before they start reading.

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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 70 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 23%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Researcher 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 17 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 21%
Neuroscience 8 11%
Linguistics 8 11%
Computer Science 4 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 23 32%
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 09 March 2017.
All research outputs
#18,525,776
of 22,947,506 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,366
of 30,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,828
of 310,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#407
of 487 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,947,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,094 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 310,751 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 487 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.