ArticleScientific reports2025
Mirror invariance dies hard during letter processing by dyslexic college students.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Reversal errors (e.g., confusing b with d, or R with Я) are common in beginning readers and often persist in individuals with developmental dyslexia due to mirror invariance-an evolutionary-old perceptual tendency of processing mirror images as equivalent. This study investigated whether dyslexic adults still struggle with mirror-image discrimination when processing reversible letters (i.e., differing only by orientation; e.g., d, b, p) and nonreversible letters (i.e., differing also in shape; e.g., f, t, r). In a masked priming lexical decision task, one letter of the prime was manipulated by letter-type (reversible, nonreversible) and prime-condition: identity (e.g., judo, zero), control (judo, zero), mirrored-letter (jubo, zero), or rotated-letter (jupo, zero). Both dyslexic and neurotypical readers showed identity priming effects: faster recognition of target-words preceded by identity than control primes. Neurotypical readers also showed mirror and rotation costs, regardless of letter-type: slower word recognition after mirrored- or rotated-letter primes than an identity prime. In contrast, and for nonreversible letters only, dyslexics were as fast in recognizing target-words preceded by identity as by mirrored-letter primes (qualified by Bayesian statistics). These findings suggest that, despite extensive reading experience, orthographic processing by dyslexic college students remains residually sensitive to mirror invariance.
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.