Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38974479›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2024

Modelling individual differences in reading using an optimised MikeNet simulator: the impact of reading instruction.

Ya-Ning Chang, Ting-Jung Chang, Wei-Fen Lin, Ching-En Kuo, Yu-Ting Shi, Hung-Wei Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 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. Review
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

6 authors.

Ya-Ning ChangMiin Wu School of Computing, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.
Ting-Jung ChangDepartment of Computer Science, National Yang-Ming Chiao-Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Wei-Fen LinMiin Wu School of Computing, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.
Ching-En KuoMiin Wu School of Computing, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.
Yu-Ting ShiMiin Wu School of Computing, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.
Hung-Wei LeeMiin Wu School of Computing, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reading is vital for acquiring knowledge and studies have demonstrated that phonology-focused interventions generally yield greater improvements than meaning-focused interventions in English among children with reading disabilities. However, the effectiveness of reading instruction can vary among individuals. Among the various factors that impact reading skills like reading exposure and oral language skills, reading instruction is critical in facilitating children's development into skilled readers; it can significantly influence reading strategies, and contribute to individual differences in reading. To investigate this assumption, we developed a computational model of reading with an optimised MikeNet simulator. In keeping with educational practices, the model underwent training with three different instructional methods: phonology-focused training, meaning-focused training, and phonology-meaning balanced training. We used semantic reliance (SR), a measure of the relative reliance on print-to-sound and print-to-meaning mappings under the different training conditions in the model, as an indicator of individual differences in reading. The simulation results demonstrated a direct link between SR levels and the type of reading instruction. Additionally, the SR scores were able to predict model performance in reading-aloud tasks: higher SR scores were correlated with increased phonological errors and reduced phonological activation. These findings are consistent with data from both behavioral and neuroimaging studies and offer insights into the impact of instructional methods on reading behaviors, while revealing individual differences in reading and the importance of integrating OP and OS instruction approaches for beginning readers.

Indexed as

computational modellingindividual differencesreading instructionsemantic relianceword reading

Identifiers

PMID38974479
PMCPMC11224532

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.