ArticleExperimental brain research2023
Neglect dyslexia: whole-word and within-word errors with parafoveal and foveal viewing.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2023. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dissociation between Selecting and Orienting Attentional Reading Deficits: A Study in Adults with Epilepsy.Brain sciences · 2024Article
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
Abstract
Patients with left-sided neglect dyslexia often omit whole words positioned on the left, termed whole-word errors, or commit errors on the left-sided letters of words, termed unilateral paralexias. In addition, the errors have been shown to be exacerbated by simultaneously presented distractors, which has been interpreted as a failure of selective attention. In two experiments, we examined the dependency of these error types on parafoveal versus foveal viewing. The first experiment used a paradigm with parafoveal targets and distractors; the second a paradigm with foveal targets and parafoveal distractors. This enabled a separate evaluation of the influences of stimulus position within an egocentric frame, a two-word allocentric frame, and a within-word allocentric frame. First, regarding whole-word errors, we found the expected spatial and distractor effects with parafoveal targets and distractors. With foveal targets and parafoveal distractors, however, the spatial effect was effectively eliminated. Surprisingly, intrusions from the distractor word were common in distractor conditions. This is consistent with an egocentric account and not a two-word allocentric account. Second, we found that unilateral paralexias remained largely consistent regardless of spatial position or the presence of a distractor. Thus, there is a contrast in spatial and distractor effects between whole-word errors and unilateral paralexias. These results are consistent with three distinct deficits: an egocentric deficit across space resulting in whole-word errors, a failure of selective attention that results in whole-word intrusion errors, and a within-word allocentric deficit resulting in unilateral paralexias.
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.