Inducing Letter-by-letter Dyslexia in Normal Readers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Letter-by-letter (LBL) dyslexia is an acquired reading disorder characterized by very slow reading and a large linear word length effect. This suggests the use of a sequential LBL strategy, in sharp contrast with the parallel letter processing used by normal subjects. Recently, we have proposed that the reading difficulty of LBL dyslexics is due to a deficit in discriminating visually similar letters based on parallel letter processing [Arguin, M., Fiset, S., & Bub, D. Sequential and parallel letter processing in letter-by-letter dyslexia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 19, 535-555, 2002]. The visual mechanisms underlying this deficit and the LBL strategy, however, are still unknown. In this article, we propose that LBL dyslexic patients have lost the ability to use, for parallel letter processing, the optimal spatial frequency band for letter and word recognition. We claim that, instead, they rely on lower spatial frequencies for parallel processing, that these lower spatial frequencies produce confusions between visually similar letters, and that the LBL compensatory strategy allows them to extract higher spatial frequencies. The LBL strategy would thus increase the spatial resolution of the visual system, effectively resolving the issue pertaining to between-letter similarity. In Experiments 1 and 2, we succeeded in replicating the main features characterizing LBL dyslexia by having normal individuals read low-contrast, high-pass-filtered words. Experiment 3, conducted in LBL dyslexic L.H., shows that, indeed, the letter confusability effect is based on low spatial frequencies, whereas this effect was not supported by high spatial frequencies.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".