ArticleBrain and behavior2025
An Exploratory EEG Comparison of Good and Bad Readers.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2025. 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.
- An Exploratory EEG Comparison of Good and Bad Readers.Brain and behavior · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study investigates the neurophysiological differences between proficient and struggling readers using electroencephalography (EEG).
methodEighteen participants, categorized as good or poor readers based on standardized assessments, underwent resting-state EEG recordings. The analysis focused on the alpha (8-12 Hz) and beta (13-30 Hz) frequency bands, which are crucial for cognitive and language processes.
findingsGood readers exhibited increased beta power in frontal regions and enhanced synchronization within fronto-central-parietal networks compared to poor readers. Alpha band activity showed complex associations with age, reading skills, and verbal fluency. The heightened beta activity in good readers aligns with its role in cognitive control and language processing, while stronger network connectivity suggests more efficient neural communication.
conclusionsThese findings provide insights into the neural basis of reading proficiency, highlighting the importance of distributed brain networks in skilled reading. Future research should replicate these results with larger samples and longitudinal designs.
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.