Chasing the Anchor: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Perceptual Anchoring Deficits in Developmental Dyslexia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose We report the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the relationship between perceptual anchoring and dyslexia. Our goal was to assess the direction and degree of the effect between perceptual anchoring and reading ability in typical and atypical (i.e., dyslexic) readers. Method We performed a literature search of experiments explicitly assessing perceptual anchoring and reading ability using PsycInfo (Ovid, 1860–2020), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1860–2019), EMBASE (Ovid, 1883–2019), and PubMed for all available years up to June (2020). Our eligibility criteria consisted of English language articles, and, at minimum, one experimental group identified as dyslexic—either by reading assessment at the time or by previous diagnosis. We assessed for risk of bias using an adapted version of the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Eight studies were included in this review and meta-analysis ( n = 422 participants). Results The overall effect was negative, moderate, and statistically significant; g = −0.70, 95% confidence interval [−1.10, −0.29]: a negative effect size indicating less perceptual anchoring in dyslexic versus nondyslexic groups. Visual assessment of funnel plot and Egger's test suggest minimal bias but with significant heterogeneity; Q (7) = 17.03, prediction interval [−1.79, 0.40]. Conclusions Of the included studies, we find evidence for a moderate perceptual anchoring deficit in individuals with dyslexia. The primary limitation of the current review is the small number of included studies. The variability of effect sizes appears consistent with the inherent variability within subtypes of dyslexia.
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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".