ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2023
Does word flickering improve reading? Negative evidence from four experiments using low and high frequencies.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2023. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lexical word processing is unaffected by rapid invisible frequency tagging in reading: Evidence from eye movements.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Flickering lenses enhance reading performance through placebo effect.Psychological research · 2025Article
- Pulsed lighting for adults with Dyslexia: very limited impact, confined to individuals with severe reading deficits.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Comment on Le Floch & Ropars (2017) 'Left-right asymmetry of the Maxwell spot centroids in adults without and with dyslexia'.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024Article
- Does word flickering improve reading? Negative evidence from four experiments using low and high frequencies.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2023Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Does word flickering facilitate reading? Despite a lack of scientific evidence, flickering glasses and lamps for dyslexia are being marketed in various countries. We conducted four experiments to assess their efficacy. Two experiments involved a computerized lexical decision task with constant display or low-frequency flickering (10 or 15 Hz). Among 375 regular adult readers, flicker noticeably slowed down word recognition, while slightly biasing the decision towards pseudowords. No significant effect was observed in 20 dyslexic children. In 22 dyslexic children, we also evaluated the impact of the Lexilight lamp and Lexilens glasses, which operate at higher frequencies, on reading fluency, letter identification and mirror letter processing. No detectable impact was observed. Lastly, in two participants who claimed to benefit from flickering glasses, we orthogonally manipulated whether the glasses were actually on, and whether the participant thought they were on. Only a small placebo effect was noted in one participant. Our findings starkly contrast with marketing claims that these tools can help 90% of dyslexics, and emphasize the role of rigorous scientific research in empowering dyslexic individuals to make informed decisions.
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.