ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2024
Modelling individual differences in reading using an optimised MikeNet simulator: the impact of reading instruction.
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.
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.
- Precision neurodiversity: personalized brain network architecture as a window into cognitive variability.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.