Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38600183›Full record

ArticleNPJ science of learning2024

Investigating lexical categorization in reading based on joint diagnostic and training approaches for language learners.

Benjamin Gagl, Klara Gregorová

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ science of learning, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Benjamin GaglSelf-learning Systems Laboratory, Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. benjamin.gagl@uni-koeln.de.
Klara GregorováDepartment of Psychology and Sports Sciences, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3828-9386

Funding

EC | EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation H2020 | H2020 Priority Excellent Science | H2020 European Research Council (H2020 Excellent Science - European Research Council) 707932
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Efficient reading is essential for societal participation, so reading proficiency is a central educational goal. Here, we use an individualized diagnostics and training framework to investigate processes in visual word recognition and evaluate its usefulness for detecting training responders. We (i) motivated a training procedure based on the Lexical Categorization Model (LCM) to introduce the framework. The LCM describes pre-lexical orthographic processing implemented in the left-ventral occipital cortex and is vital to reading. German language learners trained their lexical categorization abilities while we monitored reading speed change. In three studies, most language learners increased their reading skills. Next, we (ii) estimated, for each word, the LCM-based features and assessed each reader's lexical categorization capabilities. Finally, we (iii) explored machine learning procedures to find the optimal feature selection and regression model to predict the benefit of the lexical categorization training for each individual. The best-performing pipeline increased reading speed from 23% in the unselected group to 43% in the machine-selected group. This selection process strongly depended on parameters associated with the LCM. Thus, training in lexical categorization can increase reading skills, and accurate computational descriptions of brain functions that allow the motivation of a training procedure combined with machine learning can be powerful for individualized reading training procedures.

Identifiers

PMID38600183
PMCPMC11006909

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.