Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31813327›Full record

ArticleQuarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)2020

Testing the interhemispheric deficit theory of dyslexia using the visual half-field technique.

A R Bradshaw, Dvm Bishop, Zvj Woodhead

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

A R BradshawDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0138-5945
Dvm BishopDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2448-4033
Zvj WoodheadDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A deficit in interhemispheric transfer has been proposed as a neuropsychological theory of dyslexia. Interactions between the hemispheres during word recognition can be studied using the visual half-field paradigm. The well-established recognition advantage for right visual field (RVF) words over left visual field (LVF) words is thought to reflect the additional processing costs associated with callosal transfer of LVF word representations to the language-specialised left hemisphere. In addition, a further gain in recognition for bilateral presentation of a word has been attributed to cooperative interactions between the hemispheres. These recognition advantages can therefore be seen as behavioural indices of the efficiency of callosal transfer. This study aimed to replicate the finding of an absence of the bilateral advantage in developmental dyslexia, previously reported by Henderson et al. In all, 47 dyslexic and 43 control adult participants were tested, and no significant difference was found in the size of the bilateral advantage between the two groups. Our data did however replicate the previous finding of an increased RVF-LVF difference in dyslexic participants caused by poorer accuracy for LVF words (i.e., a greater LVF cost). This evidence is compatible with the interhemispheric deficit theory of dyslexia, suggesting an impairment in the transfer of visual word information from the right to the left hemisphere during reading.

Indexed as

ReadingAdolescentAdultCorpus CallosumDyslexiaFunctional LateralityHumansMiddle AgedPattern Recognition, VisualVisual FieldsYoung Adultcorpus callosumDyslexiainterhemispheric transferlateralizationreadingvisual half-field paradigm

Identifiers

PMID31813327
PMCPMC7297501

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.