↓ Skip to main content

Devil in the details? Developmental dyslexia and visual long-term memory for details

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Devil in the details? Developmental dyslexia and visual long-term memory for details
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00686
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lynn Huestegge, Julia Rohrßen, Muna van Ermingen-Marbach, Julia Pape-Neumann, Stefan Heim

Abstract

Cognitive theories on causes of developmental dyslexia can be divided into language-specific and general accounts. While the former assume that words are special in that associated processing problems are rooted in language-related cognition (e.g., phonology) deficits, the latter propose that dyslexia is rather rooted in a general impairment of cognitive (e.g., visual and/or auditory) processing streams. In the present study, we examined to what extent dyslexia (typically characterized by poor orthographic representations) may be associated with a general deficit in visual long-term memory (LTM) for details. We compared object- and detail-related visual LTM performance (and phonological skills) between dyslexic primary school children and IQ-, age-, and gender-matched controls. The results revealed that while the overall amount of LTM errors was comparable between groups, dyslexic children exhibited a greater portion of detail-related errors. The results suggest that not only phonological, but also general visual resolution deficits in LTM may play an important role in developmental dyslexia.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Spain 2 3%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 61 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 20%
Student > Bachelor 13 20%
Student > Master 7 11%
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 14 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 32 48%
Neuroscience 5 8%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Arts and Humanities 3 5%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 16 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 April 2015.
All research outputs
#13,335,050
of 22,758,248 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#12,944
of 29,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,806
of 227,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#228
of 397 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,248 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,671 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 227,685 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 397 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.