The group-by-task interaction is not significant for either ADHD or dyslexia comparisons, though simple t-tests show task-specific group differences¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The group by task interaction is not significant in the ADHD comparison, but the ADHD group is significantly worse than controls only on the No-Explicit-Assist task (t(51) = 2.37, p = 0.02). → Gabay 2025 q3 i? The group by task interaction is not significant in the dyslexia comparison, but the dyslexia group differs from controls on the Explicit-Assist task (t(41) = 2.405, p = 0.02) with a marginal difference on the No-Explicit-Assist task. → Gabay 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Gabay 2025¶

Gabay, Y., Jacob, L., Mansour, A. & Hertz, U. (2025). Computational markers show specific deficits for dyslexia and ADHD in complex learning settings. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-025-00323-4

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Simple one-tailed t-tests after the non-significant omnibus interaction (F(1, 51) = 1.1, p = 0.29, ηp² = 0.02) in the ADHD comparison. "The ADHD group performed significantly worse than controls in the No-Explicit-Assist task, t(51) = 2.37, p = 0.02, but not in the Explicit-Assist task."

"Their results indicated that the ADHD group performed significantly worse than controls in the No-Explicit-Assisttask,t (51) = 2.37,p = 0.02, but not in theExplicit-Assisttask,t (51) = 1.38,p = 0.12 (after Bonferroni correction)."

Gabay 2025 (2)¶

Gabay, Y., Jacob, L., Mansour, A. & Hertz, U. (2025). Computational markers show specific deficits for dyslexia and ADHD in complex learning settings. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-025-00323-4

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Simple one-tailed t-tests after the non-significant omnibus interaction (F(1, 41) = 0.13, p = 0.72, ηp² = 0.003) in the dyslexia comparison. The dyslexia group differed on the Explicit-Assist task, t(41) = 2.405, p = 0.02, and marginally on the No-Explicit-Assist task, t(41) = 1.85, p = 0.07.

"simple t-tests (one-tailed) indicated that the dyslexia group differed from the control group in theExplicit-Assist task, t (41) = 2.405,p = 0.02, with a marginally significant difference in theNo-Explicit-Assisttask, t (41) = 1.85,p = 0.07 (after Bonferroni correction)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Adults with ADHD and adults with dyslexia show poorer reinforcement learning performance than matched controls across simple and complex multidimensional tasks — related
• Adults with ADHD show reduced reliance on Bayesian inference strategies (lower alpha) than controls in complex learning settings — related
• Performance is substantially better on the Explicit-Assist task than on the No-Explicit-Assist task in both the ADHD and dyslexia comparisons — related
• Adults with dyslexia show heightened decay rates than controls in complex learning settings, indicating quicker discounting of learned associations — related