Pre-cues and post-cues eliminate set size effects for controls but not for adults with dyslexia¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q2·i3large
Currency · newest study 2011 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i3 In post-cued conditions controls showed no set size effect while AwD showed a significant set size effect. → Moores 2011
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 · r2
Two-factor ANOVAs in post-cued conditions. Controls showed no set size effect (F1,15=1.04) whereas AwD showed a significant set size effect (F1,14=24.43, p<.001, η2p=.64), with difficulty narrowly missing significance (p=0.055).
"In post-cued conditions, the controls showed an effect of difficulty (F 1,15 =5.60, p<.05, η2p =.27), but no effect of set size (F 1,15 =1.04) or interaction (F<1). In contrast, the AwD showed a significant effect of set size (F 1,14 =24.43, p<.001, η2p =.64)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Crowding effects, pre-cue dependence and set size effects each correlate significantly with reading and spelling measures — related
- Adults with dyslexia show disproportionately reduced discrimination accuracy in crowded displays compared to controls — related
- Adults with dyslexia use pre-cues to enhance discrimination accuracy, with pre-cued performance exceeding both post-cued and uncued conditions — related
- AwD showed significant set size effects in uncued conditions alongside difficulty effects, unlike controls — related
- The four-way interaction between cue, group, display type and difficulty was significant, with group differences largest for uncued crowded stimuli — related
- AwD required significantly longer calibrated display durations than controls despite attempts to equate overall accuracy — related
- Set size, crowding and pre-cue use jointly predict literacy, with set size uniquely predicting spelling and pre-cue use uniquely predicting reading — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
cues-eliminate-set-size-controls-not-awd |
title |
Pre-cues and post-cues eliminate set size effects for controls but not for adults with dyslexia |
description |
Pre-cues and post-cues eliminate set size effects for controls but not for adults with dyslexia |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2011 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-17 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — moores-2011 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.