Letter identification in normal and dyslexic readers: A verification

Perry, Anthony R.; Dember, William N.; Warm, Joel S.; Sacks, Joel G.

doi:10.3758/bf03334651

Cited by 23 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If eye move ments were a causative factor, then dyslexia could easily be diagnosed with a simple eye movement test. There have been some studies concerning whether eye movements are the cause of dyslexia: erratic eye movements [41,42,43], in stability during fixation [11], and selective attentional deficit [13,15,44]. However, the results presented in those exper iments could not be later replicated by others (see [3,5,38,39,65,66] for erratic eye movements; Raymond et al [47] for instability during fixation; and [16,28,52,53,64] for selective attentional deficit).…”

Section: Psychology Researchmentioning

confidence: 82%

Detecting readers with dyslexia using machine learning with eye tracking measures

Rello

Ballesteros

2015

Proceedings of the 12th International Web for All Conference

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Worldwide, around 10% of the population has dyslexia, a specific learning disorder. Most of previous eye tracking ex periments with people with and without dyslexia have found differences between populations suggesting that eye move ments reflect the difficulties of individuals with dyslexia. In this paper, we present the first statistical model to predict readers with and without dyslexia using eye tracking mea sures. The model is trained and evaluated in a 10-fold cross experiment with a dataset composed of 1,135 readings of people with and without dyslexia that were recorded with an eye tracker. Our model, based on a Support Vector Ma chine binary classifier, reaches 80.18% accuracy using the most informative features. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that eye tracking measures are used to predict automatically readers with dyslexia using machine learning.

show abstract

Section: Psychology Researchmentioning

confidence: 82%

Detecting readers with dyslexia using machine learning with eye tracking measures

Rello

Ballesteros

2015

Proceedings of the 12th International Web for All Conference

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In fact, one severely dyslexic man was able to recognize letters at ∼20° eccentricity. The seminal findings of Geiger and Lettvin were soon independently confirmed (Perry, Dember, Warm, & Sacks, 1989), and more recently reconfirmed in a large study involving 125 Italian children (Lorusso et al, 2004). This latter work replicated Geiger and Lettvin’s original apparatus and furthermore divided the dyslexic children into Boder and Bakker subtypes.…”

Section: Dyslexia: a High‐pcr Group?mentioning

confidence: 82%

Visual Learning and the Brain: Implications for Dyslexia

Schneps

Rose

Fischer³

2007

Mind Brain and Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT— The central and peripheral visual fields are structurally segregated in the brain and are differentiated by their anatomical and functional characteristics. While the central field appears well suited for tasks such as visual search, the periphery is optimized for rapid processing over broad regions. People vary in their abilities to make use of information in the center versus the periphery, and we propose that this bias leads to a trade‐off between abilities for sequential search versus contemporaneous comparisons. The parameter of periphery‐to‐center ratio (PCR) describes the degree of peripheral bias, which evidence suggests is high in many people with dyslexia. That is, many dyslexics favor the peripheral visual field over the center, which results in not only search deficits but also (more surprisingly) talents for visual comparison. The PCR framework offers a coherent explanation for these seemingly contradictory observations of both deficit and talent in visual processing. The framework has potential implications for instructional support in visually intensive domains such as science and mathematics.

show abstract

“…However, among the researchers who have made claims about the underlying cause of dyslexia, there remains considerable controversy with regard to the basic result that dyslexic readers process parafoveal information more effectively than do normal readers. While Perry, Dember, Warm, and Sacks (1989) reported results that were consistent with Geiger and Lettvin's (1987), others (Goolkasian & King, 1990;Klein, Berry, Briand, D'Entremont, & Farmer, 1990;Slaghuis, Lovegrove, & Freestun, 1992) were unable to replicate their main finding. Finally, the third dyslexic subject, the focus ofRayner et al 's (1989) article, showed characteristics that were somewhat like those of Geiger and Lettvin's subjects: he could identify parafoveal words and letters better than normal readers and, when reading with a moving window, he read better with a small window than with a large one.'…”

Section: Dyslexia and A Visual Temporal Processing Deficitmentioning

confidence: 92%