4.6 Article

Understanding Dyslexia Through Personalized Large-Scale Computational Models

期刊

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
卷 30, 期 3, 页码 386-395

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0956797618823540

关键词

dyslexia; computer simulation; reading

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [DP170101857]
  2. European Research Council [210922-GENMOD]
  3. Agence National de la Recherche [ANR-13-APPR-0003]
  4. Labex Brain and Language Research Institute [ANR-11-LABX-0036]
  5. Excellence Initiative of Aix-Marseille University A*MIDEX [ANR-11-IDEX-0001-02]
  6. University of Padova (Strategic Grant NEURAT)
  7. National Institutes of Health [P50 HD027802]
  8. Institute of Convergence at the Institute for Language, Communication and the Brain [ANR-16-CONV-0002]
  9. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-13-APPR-0003] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Learning to read is foundational for literacy development, yet many children in primary school fail to become efficient readers despite normal intelligence and schooling. This condition, referred to as developmental dyslexia, has been hypothesized to occur because of deficits in vision, attention, auditory and temporal processes, and phonology and language. Here, we used a developmentally plausible computational model of reading acquisition to investigate how the core deficits of dyslexia determined individual learning outcomes for 622 children (388 with dyslexia). We found that individual learning trajectories could be simulated on the basis of three component skills related to orthography, phonology, and vocabulary. In contrast, single-deficit models captured the means but not the distribution of reading scores, and a model with noise added to all representations could not even capture the means. These results show that heterogeneity and individual differences in dyslexia profiles can be simulated only with a personalized computational model that allows for multiple deficits.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据