ArticleScientific reports2024
The metrics of reading speed: understanding developmental dyslexia.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Binocular Reading Speed Comparison: Patients After Bilateral Trifocal IOL Implantation versus Those without Cataract -A Prospective, Dual-Center Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Reading from Single Versus Multiple Displays: A Cross-Sectional Developmental Comparison.Brain sciences · 2025Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We compared reading words and pseudo-words presented in single displays (as typical of psycholinguistic research) with stimuli presented in multiple displays (as typical of real-life conditions and clinical testing) under controlled conditions. Italian sixth-grade children with and without a reading deficit showed an advantage in reading times for multiple over single displays. This finding was partly ascribed to the capacity to overlap the non-decisional component of the response, an effect present in control readers as well as children with dyslexia. Furthermore, there were several indications in the data that the requirement to read sequentially taxes performance by augmenting the relative impact of the experimental manipulations used. This effect was present in both groups of children, but proportionally stronger in children with dyslexia. The study contributes to filling the gap between single and multiple displays, a condition more like real-life situations.
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.