ArticleFrontiers in psychology2021
Predicting Reading From Behavioral and Neural Measures - A Longitudinal Event-Related Potential Study.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reading skills modulate the audiovisual congruency effect in orthographic processing in children: an ERP study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- The impact of transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) on alpha coherence and verbal divergent thinking.Network neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Article
- Abnormal brain activation during speech perception and production in children and adults with reading difficulty.NPJ science of learning · 2024Article
- EEG N1 Specialization to Print in Chinese Primary School Students: Developmental Trajectories, Longitudinal Changes, and Individual Differences.Child developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fluent reading is characterized by fast and effortless decoding of visual and phonological information. Here we used event-related potentials (ERPs) and neuropsychological testing to probe the neurocognitive basis of reading in a sample of children with a wide range of reading skills. We report data of 51 children who were measured at two time points, i.e., at the end of first grade (mean age 7.6 years) and at the end of fourth grade (mean age 10.5 years). The aim of this study was to clarify whether next to behavioral measures also basic unimodal and bimodal neural measures help explaining the variance in the later reading outcome. Specifically, we addressed the question of whether next to the so far investigated unimodal measures of N1 print tuning and mismatch negativity (MMN), a bimodal measure of audiovisual integration (AV) contributes and possibly enhances prediction of the later reading outcome. We found that the largest variance in reading was explained by the behavioral measures of rapid automatized naming (RAN), block design and vocabulary (46%). Furthermore, we demonstrated that both unimodal measures of N1 print tuning (16%) and filtered MMN (7%) predicted reading, suggesting that N1 print tuning at the early stage of reading acquisition is a particularly good predictor of the later reading outcome. Beyond the behavioral measures, the two unimodal neural measures explained 7.2% additional variance in reading, indicating that basic neural measures can improve prediction of the later reading outcome over behavioral measures alone. In this study, the AV congruency effect did not significantly predict reading. It is therefore possible that audiovisual congruency effects reflect higher levels of multisensory integration that may be less important for reading acquisition in the first year of learning to read, and that they may potentially gain on relevance later on.
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.