Neural impact of Skill and Goal-based Training in Adults with Dyslexia: A Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Studies on neurobiological mechanisms of dyslexia-related interventions are ubiquitous in the literature; however, almost all of the studies come from interventions performed with children. Since dyslexia is a lifelong disorder, there needs to be more work done to understand an adult’s brain response to intervention. We recruited twenty adults with dyslexia to participate in an eight-week online intervention study. Before and after the intervention, all participants completed two functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) tasks to assess sound awareness (i.e., phoneme deletion) and sentence comprehension (i.e., sentence comprehension) skills. We found group-specific intervention effects, in which the Skill-based group significantly improved their accuracy of phoneme deletion task. In contrast, no intervention impact was evident for the sentence comprehension task. The fNIRS results provided evidence for both normalizing (i.e., significant activation in the typical reading network) and compensatory changes (i.e., significant activation in the regions outside of the reading network) in brain, namely in the left fusiform gyrus and right superior temporal gyrus, respectively. These results are further discussed in the context of function of the brain structures and the previous evidence from intervention studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".