Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Maximizing Differences in Types to Improve Dyslexics’ Reading Performances
Emma Brambilla, Armando Toscano
1. Why don’t people read well?
What reading is: McClelland & Rumelhart, 1981
#Keywords:connectionismword level, letter level, feature levelvisual and acoustic inputhigher level inputword superiority effect
What reading is: Marslen-Wilson, 1980
#Keywords:modularismon-line interactive processinglexicon, syntax, previous knowledgecontext effect
What reading is: Levelt, 1992
#Keywords:globalprocess lexicon, lexical concept, phonetic programlexical errors
The tuning orchestra hypothesis
General conclusions we can draw:
Reading is the symphony
Little lacks of tuning and synchronism
Many layers
Basic layers are more conditioning
The tuning orchestra hypothesis
Maybe they play badly because…
noise comes from a poor training
noise comes from misperception
noise comes from a bad direction
notes are badly written (visual noise)
The tuning orchestra hypothesis
They can play badly because…
noise comes from a poor training
noise comes from misperception
noise comes from a bad direction
notes are badly written (visual noise)
person
environment
The tuning orchestra hypothesis
2. How can we convert all this into an intervention?
What an intervention should beI can help you
Law 170/2010
SpecialistsTeachersFamilyChild
What an intervention should beI can help you
Law 170/2010
Why do they always concentrate on me?
What interventions actually areIt’s your problem
Law 170/2010
SpecialistsTeachersFamilyChild
What interventions actually areIt’s your problem
I’m not treated like the others
Law 170/2010
What an intervention could be
Who is dyslexic?
Inclusive interventions
Teachers Family
Technological support
Specialists
Fonts actually in useRello & Baeza-Yates, 2013
Reading time
OpenDyslexiaArial
OpenDyslexia Italic
Fixation time
CourierVerdana
Arial
Preferences
GaramondOpenDyslexia Italic
Fonts actually in useRenske de Leew, 2010
DyslexieSame speed Better accuracy
2. Our research
A dyslexic’s perspective
Visual noise
Italic CursiveAesthetics
A dyslexic’s perspective
Visual noise
p q b d I l
A dyslexic’s perspective
Visual noise
Italic CursiveAesthetics
p q b d
extrinsic
intrinsic I l
Our fontextrinsic visual noise
intri
nsic
visu
al n
oisep Q i L
B d
Dyslexia™
The “key” metaphor
MethodSample: 85 children from 1st to 5th class [M= 56%, F=44%; LD= 15%, nonLD=85%]
Materials: 5 texts (corresponding to class levels)
LD nonLD
Arial poor good
Dyslexia™ good poor
Hp:accuracyspeed
Design
Variable 1: rapidity
Variable 2: accuracyReading Performance
Variable 3: LD
Variable 4: ageVariable 5: scholarization Variable 6: complexity
Variable 7: differences in types
Resultsrapidity: F=11.89, =.001𝛂 accuracy: F=15.87, =.001 𝛂
Results
LD nonLD
Arial poor good
Dyslexia™ good better!
Inclusive interventions
Teachers Family
Technological support
Specialists
Inclusive interventions
Teachers Family
Technological support
Specialists
🎯
Inclusive interventions
Teachers Family
Technological support
Specialists
🎯
Appendix
rapidity accuracy rapidity accuracy rapidity accuracy
LD LD non-LD non-LD overall overall
1 0:02:37 13 0:02:05 3.277777778 0:02:08 4.25
2 0:02:32 5.75 0:02:07 4.428571429 0:02:13 4.722222222
3 0:04:41 15.4 0:02:43 5.363636364 0:03:14 8.235294118
4 0:06:40 10 0:02:05 3.4 0:02:36 4.307692308
5 0:02:39 6.333333333 0:02:14 3.769230769 0:02:18 4
