ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2018
Reading and lexical-decision tasks generate different patterns of individual variability as a function of condition difficulty.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- A new effective treatment for dyslexia based on dorsal visual stream neuromodulation.Journal of neurodevelopmental disorders · 2026Trial
- WAIS-IV Cognitive Profiles in Italian University Students with Dyslexia.Journal of Intelligence · 2025Article
- Letter and Word Processing in Developmental Dyslexia: Evidence from a Two-Alternative Forced Choice Task.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The metrics of reading speed: understanding developmental dyslexia.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Perceiving Oneself to Be Integrated into the Peer Group: A Protective Factor against Victimization in Children with Learning Disabilities.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Rapid online assessment of reading ability.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Analyzing Global Components in Developmental Dyscalculia and Dyslexia.Frontiers in psychology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We reanalyzed previous experiments based on lexical-decision and reading-aloud tasks in children with dyslexia and control children and tested the prediction of the difference engine model (DEM) that mean condition reaction times (RTs) and standard deviations (SDs) would be linearly related (Myerson et al., 2003). Then we evaluated the slope and the intercept with the x-axis of these linear functions in comparison with previously reported values (i.e., slope of about 0.30 and intercept of about 300 ms). In the case of lexical decision, the parameters were close to these values; by contrast, in the case of reading aloud, a much steeper slope (0.66) and a greater intercept (482.6 ms) were found. Therefore, interindividual variability grows at a much faster rate as a function of condition difficulty for reading than for lexical-decision tasks (or for other tasks reported in the literature). According to the DEM, the slope of the regression that relates means and SDs indicates the degree of correlation among the durations of the stages of processing. We propose that the need for a close coupling between orthographic and phonological processing in reading is what drives the particularly strong relationship between performance and interindividual variability that we observed in reading tasks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.