RESUMEN
PURPOSE: How does lexical decision behavior vary in students with the same grade level (all students were in their first year of middle-school), but different levels of reading fluency? Here, we tested a prediction of the dual-route model: as fluency increases, variations in the results may reflect a decreasing reliance on decoding and an increasing reliance on the lexical route. METHOD: 1,501 French 6th graders passed a one-minute speeded reading-aloud task evaluating fluency, and a ten-minute computerized lexical decision task evaluating the impact of lexicality, length, word frequency and pseudoword type. RESULTS: As predicted, the word length effect varied dramatically with reading fluency, with the least fluent students showing a length effect even for frequent words. The frequency effect also varied, but solely in proportion to overall reading speed, suggesting that frequency affects the decision stage similarly in all readers, while length disproportionately impacts poor readers. Response times and errors were also affected by pseudoword type (e.g., letter substitutions or transpositions), but these effects showed minimal variation with fluency. Overall, lexical decision variables were excellent predictors of reading fluency (r = 0.62). CONCLUSION: Our results highlight the variability in middle-school reading ability and describe how a simple lexical decision task can be used to assess students' mental lexicon (vocabulary) and the automatization of reading skills.
RESUMEN
Does word flickering facilitate reading? Despite a lack of scientific evidence, flickering glasses and lamps for dyslexia are being marketed in various countries. We conducted four experiments to assess their efficacy. Two experiments involved a computerized lexical decision task with constant display or low-frequency flickering (10 or 15 Hz). Among 375 regular adult readers, flicker noticeably slowed down word recognition, while slightly biasing the decision towards pseudowords. No significant effect was observed in 20 dyslexic children. In 22 dyslexic children, we also evaluated the impact of the Lexilight lamp and Lexilens glasses, which operate at higher frequencies, on reading fluency, letter identification and mirror letter processing. No detectable impact was observed. Lastly, in two participants who claimed to benefit from flickering glasses, we orthogonally manipulated whether the glasses were actually on, and whether the participant thought they were on. Only a small placebo effect was noted in one participant. Our findings starkly contrast with marketing claims that these tools can help 90% of dyslexics, and emphasize the role of rigorous scientific research in empowering dyslexic individuals to make informed decisions.