No abstract

Two relatively common disabilities reported by college students are attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and learning disabilities (LD). Many questions remain regarding how best to support these students and whether services such as advising, coaching, and tutoring lead to significant academic gains. The current study examined the effect of support services on the GPA of students with LD and/or ADHD at a campus that specifically serves this population by tracking students' support service usage and GPAs over a 5-year period. Results indicate that although most students who choose to receive coaching support experience academic gains, it is students with ADHD who obtain the greatest gains in GPA as a result of this support. Additionally, although tutoring can be of benefit to all students, significant GPA gains were obtained only for students with an LD diagnosis. Thus, there is a need to provide targeted supports aimed at addressing students' specific areas of challenge.

The value of neurocognitive measures to study memory, attention, cognition, and learning is well established. However, the vast majority of work using these tools is performed in tightly controlled lab experiments using simple lab stimuli. This article looks at the viability of using multimodal neurocognitive instruments to measure implicit knowledge in real‐world learning contexts. We focus on some of the most promising neurocognitive tools for this purpose, including eye‐tracking, electroencephalography (EEG), and functional near infra‐red spectroscopy (fNIRS). The specific challenges and potential of each tool are considered for use within learning contexts. These tools may be of particular importance to student populations that typically underperform on traditional learning assessments, including students with disabilities, English language learners, and students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds, among others. This review concludes with recommendations to the field for further work required to bring objective measures of implicit knowledge to real world learning contexts.

The question of what happens to visual information when the eyes move from one fixation to another is a central one in visual perception. That is, the eyes typically make saccadic movements three to five times a second in viewing conditions that do not involve tracking a moving object, but because our introspections are of a continuing visual world (and we are usually unaware of saccades), some information about the visual world is maintained from fixation to fixation; otherwise we could not function. Our introspections also suggest that detailed visual information is maintained from one fixation and somehow integrated with the visual information from the next fixation. However, many studies in the last 40 years have shown that (1) much less information is retained from a fixation than one might think, and (2) it is not clear whether much, if any, of this information is sensory (i.e., preserves a snapshotlike image of what had been seen on the last fixation).The question of how much information is maintained from fixation to fixation has usually been studied by one of two paradigms, both involving display changes during a saccadic eye movement between two fixations (Rayner, 1998). The first is a change-detection paradigm, in which r the participant is asked to make a judgment about whether or not a change occurred during the saccade. The second is a t "preview-benefit" paradigm, in which the participant is not asked to make a conscious decision about whether there has been a change; instead, the processing of the stimulus following the saccade is assessed, and the key question is how this processing is affected by information from the same spatial location seen on the previous fixation. Although the present experiments are change-detection experiments, we will review relevant findings from both these paradigms.Beginning with research as early as the 1950s, experiments investigating the ability of participants to correctly t detect intrasaccadic change indicated time and again that humans are surprisingly bad at detecting these changes when they occur in parts of a scene that they are not specifically attending to. Ditchburn (1955), and later Wallach and Lewis (1966), ran experiments designed to investigate f the mind's ability to maintain a coherent, stable image of the world in the face of constantly changing visual input. Participants in these experiments were asked to detect r changes in their environment and were surprisingly poor f at detecting reasonably large displacements of stimuli if those displacements occurred during an eye movement. Subsequent experiments by Mack (1970), Rayner (1975), d Bridgeman, Hendry, and Stark (1975, and others showed poor detection of saccade-contingent change (of both form and location) for a number of different types of stimuli, ranging from written text to simple targets. In each of these experiments, participants were presented with a g g visual stimulus that changed during a saccade and, in each This research was supported by Grants HD17246 and HD26765 from the NIH, KDI ...

No abstract