Adults with dyslexia show disproportionately reduced discrimination accuracy in crowded displays compared to controls¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1–r2 · q2 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2011 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i3 The performance accuracy of the AwD group decreased more than that of the controls in crowded displays. → Moores 2011 q2 i3 In uncued conditions the AwD showed a strong and significant effect of display type (crowded vs spread) while controls did not. → Moores 2011 (2)

Evidence¶

Moores 2011¶

Moores, E., Cassim, R. and Talcott, J.B. (2011). Adults with dyslexia exhibit large effects of crowding, increased dependence on cues, and detrimental effects of distractors in visual search tasks. Frontiers in Psychology. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.10.005

q2 · i3 · causal · r1

Four-factor ANOVA on discrimination accuracy in the crowding analysis (set size eight spread vs crowded displays) for 15 AwD and 16 controls. The display type by group interaction was significant, with the article reporting "the performance accuracy of the AwD group decreased more than that of the controls in crowded displays" (η2p =.21).

"The interaction between display type and group was significant (F1, 29=7.46, p<.01, η2p =.21), demonstrating that the performance accuracy of the AwD group decreased more than that of the controls in crowded displays."

Moores 2011 (2)¶

Moores, E., Cassim, R. and Talcott, J.B. (2011). Adults with dyslexia exhibit large effects of crowding, increased dependence on cues, and detrimental effects of distractors in visual search tasks. Frontiers in Psychology. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.10.005

q2 · i3 · causal · r2

Post-hoc two-factor ANOVAs split by group in uncued conditions. AwD showed a strong display type effect (F1,14=34.33, p<.001, η2p=.71) whereas controls showed none (F1,15=2.25, p=.15), demonstrating group-specific crowding vulnerability when stimuli were uncued.

"In contrast, whereas the controls showed no significant effect of display type in uncued conditions (F 1, 15=2.25, p=.15, η2p =.13), the AwD showed a strong and significant effect (F 1, 14=34.33, p<.001, η2p =.71)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Crowding effects, pre-cue dependence and set size effects each correlate significantly with reading and spelling measures — related
• Adults with dyslexia use pre-cues to enhance discrimination accuracy, with pre-cued performance exceeding both post-cued and uncued conditions — related
• The four-way interaction between cue, group, display type and difficulty was significant, with group differences largest for uncued crowded stimuli — related
• AwD showed significant set size effects in uncued conditions alongside difficulty effects, unlike controls — related
• Pre-cues and post-cues eliminate set size effects for controls but not for adults with dyslexia — related
• AwD required significantly longer calibrated display durations than controls despite attempts to equate overall accuracy — related