Phonological generalizations in dyslexia: The phonological grammar may not be impaired
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dyslexia is commonly attributed to a phonological deficit, but whether it effectively compromises the phonological grammar or lower level systems is rarely explored. To address this question, we gauge the sensitivity of dyslexics to grammatical phonological restrictions on spoken onset clusters (e.g., bl in block). Across languages, certain onsets are preferred to others (e.g., blif ≻ bnif ≻ bdif, where ≻ indicates a preference). Here, we show that dyslexic participants (adult native speakers of Hebrew) are fully sensitive to these phonological restrictions, and they extend them irrespective of whether the onsets are attested in their language (e.g., bnif vs. bdif) or unattested (e.g., mlif vs. mdif). Dyslexics, however, showed reduced sensitivity to phonetic contrasts (e.g., blif vs. belif; ba vs. pa). Together, these results suggest that the known difficulties of dyslexics in speech processing could emanate not from the phonological grammar, but rather from lower level impairments to acoustic/phonetic encoding, lexical storage, and retrieval.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it