Visual Magnocellular Deficits In Dyslexia : Are These Deficits Due To Co-morbidity With ADHD?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some cases of dyslexia may be accounted for by a visual problem involving the magnocellular pathways. Research on dyslexia and problems in the magnocellular pathway has been controversial. Some studies indicate that individuals with dyslexia have problems in this pathway whereas other studies have not. It may be that only the individuals with both dyslexia and ADHD have problems in this pathway while individuals with dyslexia only are spared. In support of this, research has shown that individuals with schizophrenia have attention deficits (similar to those seen in individuals with ADHD) and problems in the magnocellular pathway. In the present study, controls, participants with dyslexia only, participants with both dyslexia and ADHD, and participants with ADHD only completed central and peripheral backward masking experiments. It was predicted that the two groups of participants with ADHD would have problems in the magnocellular pathway. Some evidence was found in support of this.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".