The Effect of Facilitative Versus Inhibitory Word Training Corpora on Word Reading Accuracy Growth in Children With Dyslexia

Abstract

<jats:p> We modeled word reading growth in typically developing ( n = 118) and children with dyslexia ( n = 20), Grades 2–5, across multiple exposures to 30 words. We explored the facilitative versus inhibitory effects of exposures to differential mixes of words that support high- versus low-frequency vowel pronunciations. One training corpus contained a ratio of 80%–20% high- to low-frequency pronunciations (e.g., for ea; 80% ea pronounced as /i/ as in bead and 20% ea pronounced /ε/ as in dead), whereas the other consisted of a ratio of 20%–80%. We also modeled accuracy at the final exposure for a subset of 12 shared words across conditions using item-level crossed-random effects models with reading skill (i.e., typically developing vs. dyslexic), condition, word frequency, and vowel pronunciation (i.e., high- vs. low-frequency vowel pronunciation) as predictors in the model. We were particularly interested in the interaction between condition and vowel pronunciation across reading groups. Results suggest typically developing children were influenced by the interaction between condition and vowel pronunciation, suggesting both facilitation and inhibition, whereas children with dyslexia were influenced by condition and vowel pronunciation without an interaction. Results are interpreted within the overfitting model of dyslexia. </jats:p>

Unraveling individual differences in learning potential: A dynamic framework for the case of reading development

“…Brain measures reflecting functional or structural growth curves of specific components of the developing reading network instead often exhibit an inverted U-shape ( Di Pietro et al, 2023 , Fraga-González et al, 2021 , Maurer et al, 2006 , Romanovska et al, 2022 ). Similar behavioral and neural trajectories are also evident during short-term learning tasks of language and reading skills ( Guerra et al, 2023 , Hashimoto and Sakai, 2004 , Malins et al, 2021 , Mayringer and Wimmer, 2000 ; Steacy et al, 2021 ; Verwimp et al, 2023 ; Zhang et al, 2021 ). These short-term trajectories may be affected by individual differences in reading level ( Guerra et al, 2023 , Malins et al, 2021 , Mayringer and Wimmer, 2000 , Pugh et al, 2008 ; Steacy et al, 2020 ; Zhang et al, 2021 ) and attention skills ( Guerra et al, 2023 ), as well as by task instructions ( Verwimp et al, 2023 ), and linguistic features, such as the orthographic-phonological regularity ( Steacy et al, 2021 ), and semantic features ( Steacy et al, 2020 ) of the materials being learned.…”

“…Similar behavioral and neural trajectories are also evident during short-term learning tasks of language and reading skills ( Guerra et al, 2023 , Hashimoto and Sakai, 2004 , Malins et al, 2021 , Mayringer and Wimmer, 2000 ; Steacy et al, 2021 ; Verwimp et al, 2023 ; Zhang et al, 2021 ). These short-term trajectories may be affected by individual differences in reading level ( Guerra et al, 2023 , Malins et al, 2021 , Mayringer and Wimmer, 2000 , Pugh et al, 2008 ; Steacy et al, 2020 ; Zhang et al, 2021 ) and attention skills ( Guerra et al, 2023 ), as well as by task instructions ( Verwimp et al, 2023 ), and linguistic features, such as the orthographic-phonological regularity ( Steacy et al, 2021 ), and semantic features ( Steacy et al, 2020 ) of the materials being learned. The trajectories of learning and recall are further modulated by sleep consolidation processes, as evidenced by studies that have assessed the effects of naps or overnight sleep on various types of learning, including vocabulary acquisition ( Henderson et al, 2021 , James et al, 2020 , Landi et al, 2018 , Smith et al, 2018 ), pseudoword learning ( Malins et al, 2021 ), auditory sequence learning ( Ballan et al, 2023 ), or mirror-letter differentiation ( Torres et al, 2021 ).…”