Adults with dyslexia can use cues to orient and constrain attention but have a smaller and weaker attention spotlight

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

We report results from two experiments assessing distribution of attention and cue use in adults with dyslexia (AwD) and in a group of typically reading controls. Experiment 1 showed normal effects of cueing in AwD, with faster responses when probes were presented within a cued area and normal effects of eccentricity and stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). In addition, AwD showed stronger benefits of a longer SOA when they had to move attention farther, and stronger effects of inclusion on the left, suggesting that cueing is particularly important in more difficult conditions. Experiment 2 tested the use of cues in a texture detection task involving a wider range of eccentricities and a shorter SOA. In this paradigm, focused attention at the central location is actually detrimental and cueing further reduces performance. Thus, if AwD have a more distributed attention, they should show a reduced performance drop at central locations and, if they do not use cues, they should show less negative effects of cueing. In contrast, AwD showed a larger drop and a positive effect of cueing. These results are better accounted for by a smaller and weaker spotlight of attention. Performance does not decrease at central locations because the attentional spotlight is already deployed with maximum intensity, which cannot be further enhanced at central locations. Instead, use of cueing helps to focus limited resources. Cues orient attention to the right area without enhancing it to the point where this is detrimental for texture detection. Implications for reading are discussed.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)55-65
Number of pages11
JournalVision Research
Volume111
Issue numberPA
Early online date11 Apr 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2015

Fingerprint

Dyslexia
Cues
Reading

Bibliographical note

NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Vision research. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published Moores, L., Tsouknida, E., & Romani, C. (2015). Adults with dyslexia can use cues to orient and constrain attention but have a smaller and weaker attention spotlight. Vision research, 111(PA), 55-65. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2015.03.019

Keywords

  • cueing
  • developmental dyslexia
  • reading
  • texture segmentation
  • visual attention

Cite this

@article{aef12c49664c449787697a7054139bb1,
title = "Adults with dyslexia can use cues to orient and constrain attention but have a smaller and weaker attention spotlight",
abstract = "We report results from two experiments assessing distribution of attention and cue use in adults with dyslexia (AwD) and in a group of typically reading controls. Experiment 1 showed normal effects of cueing in AwD, with faster responses when probes were presented within a cued area and normal effects of eccentricity and stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). In addition, AwD showed stronger benefits of a longer SOA when they had to move attention farther, and stronger effects of inclusion on the left, suggesting that cueing is particularly important in more difficult conditions. Experiment 2 tested the use of cues in a texture detection task involving a wider range of eccentricities and a shorter SOA. In this paradigm, focused attention at the central location is actually detrimental and cueing further reduces performance. Thus, if AwD have a more distributed attention, they should show a reduced performance drop at central locations and, if they do not use cues, they should show less negative effects of cueing. In contrast, AwD showed a larger drop and a positive effect of cueing. These results are better accounted for by a smaller and weaker spotlight of attention. Performance does not decrease at central locations because the attentional spotlight is already deployed with maximum intensity, which cannot be further enhanced at central locations. Instead, use of cueing helps to focus limited resources. Cues orient attention to the right area without enhancing it to the point where this is detrimental for texture detection. Implications for reading are discussed.",
keywords = "cueing, developmental dyslexia, reading, texture segmentation, visual attention",
author = "Elisabeth Moores and Effie Tsouknida and Cristina Romani",
note = "NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Vision research. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published Moores, L., Tsouknida, E., & Romani, C. (2015). Adults with dyslexia can use cues to orient and constrain attention but have a smaller and weaker attention spotlight. Vision research, 111(PA), 55-65. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2015.03.019",
year = "2015",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1016/j.visres.2015.03.019",
language = "English",
volume = "111",
pages = "55--65",
journal = "Vision Research",
issn = "0042-6989",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "PA",

}

Adults with dyslexia can use cues to orient and constrain attention but have a smaller and weaker attention spotlight. / Moores, Elisabeth; Tsouknida, Effie; Romani, Cristina.

In: Vision Research, Vol. 111, No. PA, 06.2015, p. 55-65.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Adults with dyslexia can use cues to orient and constrain attention but have a smaller and weaker attention spotlight

AU - Moores, Elisabeth

AU - Tsouknida, Effie

AU - Romani, Cristina

N1 - NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Vision research. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published Moores, L., Tsouknida, E., & Romani, C. (2015). Adults with dyslexia can use cues to orient and constrain attention but have a smaller and weaker attention spotlight. Vision research, 111(PA), 55-65. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2015.03.019

PY - 2015/6

Y1 - 2015/6

N2 - We report results from two experiments assessing distribution of attention and cue use in adults with dyslexia (AwD) and in a group of typically reading controls. Experiment 1 showed normal effects of cueing in AwD, with faster responses when probes were presented within a cued area and normal effects of eccentricity and stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). In addition, AwD showed stronger benefits of a longer SOA when they had to move attention farther, and stronger effects of inclusion on the left, suggesting that cueing is particularly important in more difficult conditions. Experiment 2 tested the use of cues in a texture detection task involving a wider range of eccentricities and a shorter SOA. In this paradigm, focused attention at the central location is actually detrimental and cueing further reduces performance. Thus, if AwD have a more distributed attention, they should show a reduced performance drop at central locations and, if they do not use cues, they should show less negative effects of cueing. In contrast, AwD showed a larger drop and a positive effect of cueing. These results are better accounted for by a smaller and weaker spotlight of attention. Performance does not decrease at central locations because the attentional spotlight is already deployed with maximum intensity, which cannot be further enhanced at central locations. Instead, use of cueing helps to focus limited resources. Cues orient attention to the right area without enhancing it to the point where this is detrimental for texture detection. Implications for reading are discussed.

AB - We report results from two experiments assessing distribution of attention and cue use in adults with dyslexia (AwD) and in a group of typically reading controls. Experiment 1 showed normal effects of cueing in AwD, with faster responses when probes were presented within a cued area and normal effects of eccentricity and stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). In addition, AwD showed stronger benefits of a longer SOA when they had to move attention farther, and stronger effects of inclusion on the left, suggesting that cueing is particularly important in more difficult conditions. Experiment 2 tested the use of cues in a texture detection task involving a wider range of eccentricities and a shorter SOA. In this paradigm, focused attention at the central location is actually detrimental and cueing further reduces performance. Thus, if AwD have a more distributed attention, they should show a reduced performance drop at central locations and, if they do not use cues, they should show less negative effects of cueing. In contrast, AwD showed a larger drop and a positive effect of cueing. These results are better accounted for by a smaller and weaker spotlight of attention. Performance does not decrease at central locations because the attentional spotlight is already deployed with maximum intensity, which cannot be further enhanced at central locations. Instead, use of cueing helps to focus limited resources. Cues orient attention to the right area without enhancing it to the point where this is detrimental for texture detection. Implications for reading are discussed.

KW - cueing

KW - developmental dyslexia

KW - reading

KW - texture segmentation

KW - visual attention

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928333245&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.visres.2015.03.019

DO - 10.1016/j.visres.2015.03.019

M3 - Article

VL - 111

SP - 55

EP - 65

JO - Vision Research

JF - Vision Research

SN - 0042-6989

IS - PA

ER -