Rhythm as an independent determinant of developmental dyslexia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Temporal accounts of Developmental Dyslexia (DD) postulate that a timing impairment plays an important role in this learning disorder. However, DD has been associated with timing disorders as well as other motor and cognitive dysfunctions. It is still unclear whether nonverbal timing skills per se may be considered as independent determinants of DD. In this study, we investigated the independent contribution of predictive timing to DD above and beyond the motor and cognitive dysfunctions typically associated with this disorder. Twenty-one children with DD (aged 8-12, nine females) and 27 controls (14 females) were evaluated on perceptual timing, finger tapping, fine motor control, as well as attention and executive tasks. Participants were native French speakers from various socioeconomic backgrounds. The performance of children with DD was poorer than that of controls in most of the tasks. Predictors of DD, as identified by logistic regression modeling, were beat perception and precision in tapping to the beat, which are both predictive timing variables, children's tapping rate, and cognitive flexibility. These data support temporal accounts of DD in which predictive timing impairments partially explain the core phonological deficit, independent from general motor and cognitive functioning, making predictive timing a valuable tool for early diagnosis and remediation of DD. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".