ArticleNPJ science of learning2026
Dynamic behavioral and neural correlates of letter-speech sound learning in typical and dyslexic readers.
Article in NPJ science of learning, 2026. 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.
- Repeated plantar electrical stimulation is associated with altered lower-limb somatosensory processing in older adults: evidence from somatosensory evoked potentials.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Difficulties in forming letter-speech sound associations may constitute a challenge for individuals with dyslexia. However, the learning trajectories of these associations remain poorly understood. This EEG study examined behavioral and neural changes while 31 typical and 31 dyslexic adult readers learned to map six novel symbols to Dutch spoken syllables with either high or low phonological similarity. Both groups demonstrated successful learning with learning-related ERP changes over frontotemporal, temporoparietal, and occipitoparietal regions. Phonologically similar vs. dissimilar pairs showed lower accuracy, slower reaction times, and reduced ERP responses, with earlier frontotemporal effects in dyslexic vs. typical readers (block 2 vs. blocks 3-4). As for learning outcomes, both groups showed temporoparietal (mis)matching responses in the last block. Dyslexic readers had lower post-training symbol reading scores, which correlated with their reading and phonological skills. Our findings indicate comparable learning during initial symbol-sound association in dyslexic readers, but difficulties applying novel associations during reading.
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.