ArticleCurrent biology : CB2026
Visual processing is a language-agnostic window into heterogeneity in early reading development.
Article in Current biology : CB, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Reading disabilities impose profound impacts on educational and socioeconomic outcomes worldwide, yet identifying reliable early predictors remains a significant challenge. For five decades, the role of visual processing in reading development has been contested-largely due to small, homogeneous samples and a lack of research designed to capture heterogeneity in reading development. In this study, we administered theory-driven, carefully validated measures of visual processing-including multi-element processing of letters and pseudo-letters and global motion coherence-to a large, socioeconomically and linguistically diverse cohort of kindergarten and first-grade children in California public schools. A subset of children received language-based assessments and reading outcomes along with the visual measures (n ∼ 400). Using latent profile analysis, we identified subgroups invisible to conventional screening: children with strong language skills but poor visual-processing abilities who exhibited persistent reading difficulties a year later and another subgroup of children who leveraged strong visual-processing abilities to achieve reading success despite weaker language abilities. Visual-processing measures proved equitable across children's socioeconomic status and home language, independently accounting for 12%-16% of variance in reading outcomes and emerging as consistently important predictors of reading risk in machine learning models. Integrating measures of rapid visual processing, especially multi-element processing, into early identification offers a path toward mechanistically informed personalized interventions that leverage children's specific strengths.
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.