Claims

The four-way interaction between cue, group, display type and difficulty was significant, with group differences largest for uncued crowded stimuli

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2 · i3 large
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 The four-way interaction between cue, group, display type and difficulty was significant, indicating that performance of AwD and controls differed more when stimuli were uncued and crowded. → 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

Four-factor ANOVA on crowding-analysis accuracy (set size eight spread vs crowded, uncued vs pre-cued, easy vs difficult) for 15 AwD and 16 controls. Significant cue-group, cue-display and cue-display-group interactions (η2p =.23, .26, .15) indicated group differences were largest for uncued crowded displays.

"There were also significant interactions of cue and group (F1, 29=8.85, p<.01, η2p =.23); cue and display type (F1, 29=10.36, p<.01, η2p =.26); and cue, display type and group (F1, 29=5.03, p<.05, η2p =.15). These findings suggested that performance of AwD and controls differed more when stimuli were uncued and crowded."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id four-way-cue-group-display-difficulty-interaction
title The four-way interaction between cue, group, display type and difficulty was significant, with group differences largest for uncued crowded stimuli
description The four-way interaction between cue, group, display type and difficulty was significant, with group differences largest for uncued crowded stimuli
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.