Consonant-confusion error patterns in artificial script reading differ between dyslexic and typical readers¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (3 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i2–i3
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 In the letter task, typical readers with errors showed significantly more similar than dissimilar consonant confusions (d = .62). → Cao 2026 q3 i2 In the syllable task, dyslexic readers made significantly more errors for dissimilar than similar consonants (d = -.63), with no difference in the letter task. → Cao 2026 (2) q3 i3 Among participants with confusion errors, TD participants showed a significantly higher similar error rate on the letter task than DD participants (d = .86). → Cao 2026 (3)

Evidence¶

Cao 2026¶

Cao, Y., Zhang, M., Gentile, F. & Bonte, M. (2026). Dynamic behavioral and neural correlates of letter-speech sound learning in typical and dyslexic readers. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-026-00410-0

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

Paired-samples t-tests on consonant substitution errors among TD participants who made errors (n = 19 syllable, n = 16 letter task): "significantly more confusions for similar than dissimilar consonants in the letter task" (d = .62), but no syllable-task difference.

"Paired-samples t-tests showed no significant difference between error types for TD in the syllable task (t(18) = -.816, p > .05, d = -0.19), but significantly more confusions for similar than dissimilar consonants in the letter task (t(15) = 2.474, p = .026, d = .62)."

Cao 2026 (2)¶

Cao, Y., Zhang, M., Gentile, F. & Bonte, M. (2026). Dynamic behavioral and neural correlates of letter-speech sound learning in typical and dyslexic readers. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-026-00410-0

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

Paired-samples t-tests among DD participants who made errors (n = 21 both tasks): "significantly more errors for dissimilar than similar consonants in the syllable task" (d = -.63), no letter-task difference (d = -.21).

"Dyslexic readers instead showed significantly more errors for dissimilar than similar consonants in the syllable task ( t(20) = -2.904, p = .009, d = -.63) but no significant difference in the letter task ( t(20) = -.972, p > .05, d = -.21)."

Cao 2026 (3)¶

Cao, Y., Zhang, M., Gentile, F. & Bonte, M. (2026). Dynamic behavioral and neural correlates of letter-speech sound learning in typical and dyslexic readers. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-026-00410-0

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

Independent-samples t-test comparing similar-error rates in the letter task: the 16 of 31 TD participants with confusion errors "showed a significantly higher similar error rate compared to the 21 (out of 31) DD participants" (d = .86).

"the 16 (out of 31) TD participants with confusion errors on the letter task, showed a significantly higher similar error rate compared to the 21 (out of 31) DD participants with confusion errors on this task (t(35) = 2.604, p = .013, d = .86)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Dyslexic readers score lower on post-training artificial script syllable, letter and word reading but not on basic visual symbol recognition — related
• Phonologically similar pairs are learned with lower accuracy and slower reaction-time learning than dissimilar pairs, in both groups — related
• Artificial script reading posttest scores relate to Spoonerisms phonological-awareness performance only through group-level differences — related
• Dyslexic readers show the frontotemporal phonological-similarity ERP reduction earlier in learning (block 2) than typical readers (blocks 3–4) — related
• Adult typical and dyslexic readers show successful and comparable behavioral learning of novel symbol-speech sound associations — related