An In-Depth Investigation of Eye Movement Profile of Dyslexic Readers Using a Standardized Text-Reading Aloud Task in French
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: Most eye-movement studies in dyslexia focus on silent reading in controlled laboratory settings. Yet, oral reading of standardized texts remains central for identifying this disorder. By combining eye-tracking with oral reading, we captured both fixation dynamics and eye-voice span (EVS) measures, offering a richer view of the processes underlying dyslexia. (2) Methods: We tested 10 adults with dyslexia and 14 controls as they read aloud an unpredictable diagnostic text in French. Analyses examined psycholinguistic effects of word length and lexical frequency on fixation probabilities, counts, and durations, alongside EVS measures. (3) Results: Compared to controls, adults with dyslexia read more slowly, made more errors, and showed atypical fixation patterns: persistent word length effects, reduced frequency effects, and diminished, unstable EVS. (4) Conclusions: Together, eye-movement and EVS findings converge on a key mechanism: adults with dyslexia continue to rely heavily on sublexical decoding. This reliance creates a processing bottleneck in oral reading, where difficulties in rapid word identification cascade into sounding-out behavior and disrupted eye-voice coordination.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".