Introducing a novel audio-visual pairing in Block 2 produced a reliable accuracy decrease only among reading-matched controls¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The Block 2 introduction of a new stimulus combining previously used sounds with a new visual form led to a reliable decrease in accuracy only in the reading-matched control group. → Pasqualotto 2025

Evidence¶

Pasqualotto 2025¶

Pasqualotto, A., Cochrane, A., Venuti, P. et al. (2025). Impaired audio-visual associations in dyslexia: evidence beyond linguistic processing. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-025-00382-7

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Bayesian mixed-model offset coefficient for the Block 2 stimulus introduction across both waves (mean = -0.163, CI95 = [-0.300, -0.039]). The effect was not reliable in Wave 1 alone (mean = -0.057) but was evident in Wave 2 (mean = -0.295, CI95 = [-0.482, -0.113]).

"The introduction of a new stimulus , in which previously used sounds are recombined to match a new visual form, in Block 2, led to a reliable decrease in accuracy only among the reading-matched controls."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The Block 3 novel stimulus reliably decreased accuracy only in the age-matched group, whose decrease exceeded that of the other groups — related
• Recognition accuracy is higher for familiar than novel stimuli across all mapping groups, with the familiar-novel difference consistent across groups — reports the opposite
• Novel stimuli are recognized above chance only by the Traditional and Reversed algorithm groups, not by the Control group — related