Artificial script reading posttest scores relate to Spoonerisms phonological-awareness performance only through group-level differences¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Spoonerisms RT negatively predicted artificial script reading posttest scores, but within-group correlations were non-significant, indicating the association reflects group differences. → Cao 2026

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

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Regression analysis relating posttest scores to reading and phonological skills (final adjusted R² = .159, F(7,49) = 2.515, p = .027): "Spoonerisms RT consistently negatively predicted performance across steps 1 and 2", but within-group correlations were non-significant (p > .50) for both groups. No standardized effect size printed for the predictor.

"The analysis revealed that Spoonerisms RT consistently negatively predicted performance across steps 1 and 2, suggesting that faster and more accurate Spoonerisms task performance was associated with better performance in reading artificial symbols. However, within-group correlations between Spoonerisms RT and posttest performan ce were non -significant for both groups (p > .50)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Consonant-confusion error patterns in artificial script reading differ between dyslexic and typical readers — related
• Dyslexic readers score lower on post-training artificial script syllable, letter and word reading but not on basic visual symbol recognition — related
• In-scanner sentence judgment accuracy correlates significantly with standardized reading fluency and phonological awareness scores across both groups — related