ArticleDyslexia (Chichester, England)2022
Statistical learning in children with a family risk of dyslexia.
Article in Dyslexia (Chichester, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Statistical learning in children with a family risk of dyslexia.Dyslexia (Chichester, England) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The assumption that statistical learning is affected in dyslexia has generally been evaluated in children and adults with diagnosed dyslexia, not in pre-literate children with a family risk (FR) of dyslexia. In this study, four-to-five-year-old FR children (n = 25) and No-FR children (n = 33) completed tasks of emerging literacy (phoneme awareness and RAN). They also performed an online non-adjacent dependency learning (NADL) task, based on the Serial Reaction Time (SRT) task paradigm. Children's accuracy (hits), signal sensitivity (d') and reaction times were measured. The FR group performed marginally more poorly on phoneme awareness and significantly more poorly on RAN than the No-FR group. Regarding NADL outcomes, the results were less straightforward: the data suggested successful statistical learning for both groups, as indicated by the hit and reaction time curves found. However, the FR group was less accurate and slower on the task than the No-FR group. Furthermore, unlike the No-FR group, performance in the FR group varied as a function of the specific stimulus presented. Taken together, these findings fail to show a robust difference in statistical learning between children with and without an FR of dyslexia at preschool age, in line with earlier work on older children and adults with dyslexia.
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.