MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391750807 · doi:10.1080/02699206.2023.2298993

The symptoms of surface dyslexia in Arabic: the impact of orthographic ambiguity on reading abilities of a patient with Alzheimer’s disease

2024· article· en· W4391750807 on OpenAlexaff
Assia Boumaraf, Souad Brahimi, Samia Ladjali, Joël Macoir

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Linguistics & Phonetics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDyslexiaPsychologyVowelReading (process)LinguisticsHomophoneSemitic languagesContext (archaeology)ConsonantAmbiguityCognitive psychologyArabic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Like other Semitic languages, Arabic is known for its rich morphology and consonantal writing system. In this article, we report the first case of acquired surface dyslexia in an Arabic-speaking patient (HBS). Surface dyslexia is characterised by difficulty reading irregularly spelled words, while performance is better with regular words and nonwords. The purpose of this study was to describe the symptoms of surface dyslexia in Arabic and to investigate how orthographic depth may affect reading in the context of semantic impairment. In HBS, who had Alzheimer's disease, reading was impaired for both words and nonwords. Her reading performance was affected by orthographic ambiguity and by the presence of diacritics depicting short vowels. In particular, she produced mainly vowel errors, suggesting an overreliance on the sublexical route of reading. On the other hand, HBS was able to distinguish long vowels from consonants represented by the same letters, provided there was a real root. This finding can be taken as evidence that HBS could access the word's root to decide whether the vowel letter represents a long vowel or a consonant. The results of this study suggest that the characteristics of surface dyslexia appear to be universal: reading regular words is spared compared to irregular words and non-words. However, the error patterns that HBS showed in reading support a language-specific conceptualisation of the processing components of the lexical and sublexical routes of reading.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.467

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.357 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Linguistics & PhoneticsSame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207