ArticlePloS one2026
Procedural or declarative deficit in adults with developmental dyslexia? A study of Artificial grammar learning.
Article in PloS one, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial grammar learning (AGL) has frequently been employed to investigate the procedural hypothesis of dyslexia. However, most studies did not distinguish whether performance depended upon the acquisition of grammatical rules (procedural memory), distributional knowledge (statistical learning) or reference to individual memory traces (instances). An AGL paradigm was administered to 32 young adults with dyslexia and 60 controls. During the learning phase, adults with dyslexia learned artificial grammar and then utilized procedural memory in the grammaticality judgment and recognition tasks to a similar extent as controls. An overall group difference was observed only on the grammaticality judgment task; however, the performance of both groups was similarly modulated by the grammaticality of the stimuli. Adults with dyslexia acquired and used individual memories (instances) in both grammaticality judgment and recognition tasks. However, they exhibited some difficulty in forming individual memories, as indicated by their greater tendency to mistakenly identify non-grammatical control items as previously seen during the training phase (recognition task). On untrained items, adults with dyslexia also showed an advantage with high compared to low-bigram frequency stimuli, indicating reliance on sublexical statistical cues to foster their performance. In conclusion, adults with dyslexia acquired procedural rules and showed sensitivity to the distributional properties of the stimuli, providing little support for the procedural hypothesis of dyslexia. This study highlighted both spared and compensatory mechanisms in adults with dyslexia. Previous conflicting results may depend on not having isolated which components (procedural vs declarative memory vs statistical learning) are involved in the AGL paradigm.
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.