An experimental eye-tracking study of text adaptation for readers with dyslexia: effects of visual support and word frequency

Abstract

Easy-to-read guidelines recommend visual support and lexical simplification to facilitate text processing, but few empirical studies confirm a positive effect from these recommendations in individuals with dyslexia. This study examined the influence of the visual support and lexical simplification on sentence processing through eye movements at both the text- and word-level, and the differences between readers with and without dyslexia. Furthermore, we explored the influence of reading experience and vocabulary, as control variables. We tested 20 young adults with dyslexia and 20 chronological age-matched controls. Participants read 60 sentences in total. Half the sentences contained an image and the other half did not, and half contained a low-frequency word and half a high-frequency word. Results showed that visual support and lexical simplification facilitated sentence processing, potentially by jointly facilitating lexical semantic access. We also found that participants with lower print exposure and lower vocabulary benefited more from word-level lexical simplification. We conclude that both adaptations could benefit readers with low print exposure and smaller vocabularies, and therefore, to many dyslexic readers who show these characteristics.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    The effect sizes of the main effect of group on the text-level reading time measures were approximately .25 (i.e. diagnostic status accounted for about one-quarter of the variance in reading times). The mean group difference in text (total) reading time was approximately one and a half seconds, which translates to about 25% longer. Thus, it took dyslexic participants 25% more processing time to achieve equal comprehension accuracy. Increased re-reading is commonly regarded as the most frequent reading strategy employed by individuals with dyslexia (Simmons & Singelton, 2000).

References

  1. Acheson, D. J., Wells, J. B., & MacDonald, M. C. (2008). New and updated tests of print exposure and reading abilities in college students. Behavior Research Methods, 40(1), 278–289. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.1.278.

  2. Ashby, J., Rayner, K., & Clifton, C. (2005). Eye movements of highly skilled and average readers: differential effects of frequency and predictability. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 58(6), 1065–1086. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980443000476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Asociación Española de Normalización. (2018). Norma Española Experimental UNE 153101 EX. Lectura Fácil: Pautas y recomendaciones para la elaboración de documentos. AENOR INTERNACIONAL S.A.U.

  4. Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013176309260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cerga-Pashoja, A., Gaete, J., Shishkova, A., & Jordanova, V. (2019). Improving reading in adolescents and adults with high-functioning autism through an assistive technology tool: a cross-over multinational study. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10(546). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00546.

  6. Denckla, M. B., & Rudel, R. G. (1976). Rapid “automatized” naming (R.A.N): dyslexia differentiated from other learning disabilities. Neuropsychologia, 14(4), 471–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(76)90075-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (4th ed.). Pearson.

  8. Dye, L., Hare, D. J., & Hendy, S. (2007). Capacity of people with intellectual disabilities to consent to take part in a research study. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 20(2), 168–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3148.2006.00310.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS: (and sex, drugs and rock’n’roll) (3rd ed.). SAGE.

  10. Freyhoff, G., Hess, G., Kerr, L., Menzel, E., Tronbacke, B., & Van der Veken, K. (1998). Make it simple. European guidelines for the production of easy-to-read information for people with learning disability. ILSMH European Association.

  11. Holmqvist, K., Nyström, M., Andersson, R., Dewhurst, R., Jarodzka, H., & Van de Weijer, J. (2011). Eye tracking: a comprehensive guide to methods and measures. Oxford University Press.

  12. Huettig, F., Rommers, J., & Meyer, A. S. (2011). Using the visual world paradigm to study language processing: a review and critical evaluation. Acta Psychologica, 137(2), 151–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.11.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hyöna, J., Lorch, R. F., & Rinck, M. (2003). Eye Movement measures to study global text processing. In J. Hyönä, R. Radach, & H. B. T. Deubel (Eds.), The mind’s eye (pp. 313–334). North-Holland. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-044451020-4/50018-9.

  14. Hyöna, J., & Olson, R. K. (1995). Eye fixation patterns among dyslexic and normal readers: effects of word length and word frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(6), 1430–1440. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.6.1430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Inhoff, A. W., & Radach, R. (1998). Definition and computation of oculomotor measures in the study of cognitive processes. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 29–53). Elsevier Science Ltd.. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008043361-5/50003-1.

  16. Inhoff, A. W., & Rayner, K. (1986). Parafoveal word processing during eye fixations in reading: effects of word frequency. Perception & Psychophysics, 40(6), 431–439. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jones, F. W., Long, K., & Finlay, W. M. L. (2007a). Symbols can improve the reading comprehension of adults with learning disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 51(7), 545–550. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00926.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jones, M. W., Kelly, M. L., & Corley, M. (2007b). Adult dyslexic readers do not demonstrate regularity effects in sentence processing: evidence from eye-movements. Reading and Writing, 20(9), 933–943. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9060-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: from eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87(4), 329–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.87.4.329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Karreman, J., van der Geest, T., & Buursink, E. (2007). Accessible website content guidelines for users with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 20(6), 510–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3148.2006.00353.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kliegl, R., Olson, R. K., & Davidson, B. J. (1982). Regression analyses as a tool for studying reading processes: comment on Just and Carpenters eye fixation theory. Memory & Cognition, 10(3), 287–296. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Leech, G., Rayson, P., & Wilson, A. (2001). Word frequencies in written and spoken English: based on the British National Corpus. Longman.

  23. Liversedge, S. P., & Findlay, J. M. (2000). Saccadic eye movements and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01418-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811678.

  25. McCartney, K., Burchinal, M. R., & Bub, K. L. (2006). Best practices in quantitative methods for developmentalists. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 71(3), 1–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5834.2006.07103001.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mol, S. E., & Bus, A. G. (2011). To read or not to read: a meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 267–296. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Moore, M., & Gordon, P. C. (2015). Reading ability and print exposure: item response theory analysis of the author recognition test. Behavior research methods, 47(4), 1095–1109. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0534-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Morton, J. (1969). Categories of interference: verbal mediation and conflict in card sorting. British Journal of Psychology, 60(3), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1969.tb01204.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Norton, E. S., & Wolf, M. (2012). Rapid automatized naming (RAN) and reading fluency: implications for understanding and treatment of reading disabilities. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 427–452. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurevpsych-120710-100431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Pickering, M. J., & Gambi, C. (2018). Predicting while comprehending language: a theory and review. Psychological Bulletin, 144(10), 1002–1044. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Poncelas, A., & Murphy, G. (2007). Accessible information for people with intellectual disabilities: do symbols really help? Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 20(5), 466–474. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3148.2006.00334.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Rayner, K. (1977). Visual attention in reading: eye movements reflect cognitive processes. Memory & Cognition, 5(4), 443–448. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14(3), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Rayner, K., & Fischer, M. H. (1996). Mindless reading revisited: eye movements during reading and scanning are different. Perception & Psychophysics, 58(5), 734–747. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Rayner, K., & Raney, G. E. (1996). Eye movement control in reading and visual search: effects of word frequency. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(2), 245–248. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Rayner, K., Sereno, S. C., Morris, R. K., Schmauder, A. R., & Clifton Jr., C. (1989). Eye movements and on-line language comprehension processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4(3-4), SI21–SI49. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690968908406362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Rayner, K., Sereno, S. C., & Raney, G. E. (1996). Eye movement control in reading: a comparison of two types of models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22(5), 1188–1200. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.22.5.1188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rello, L., & Baeza-Yates, R. (2013, October). Good fonts for dyslexia [Conference session]. In Proceedings of the 15th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility. Bellevue, WA: United States. https://doi.org/10.1145/2513383.2513447.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Rello, L., & Baeza-Yates, R. (2017). How to present more readable text for people with dyslexia. Universal Access in the Information Society, 16(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-015-0438-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Rüsseler, J., Probst, S., Johannes, S., & Münte, T. F. (2003). Recognition memory for high- and low-frequency words in adult normal and dyslexic readers: an event-related brain potential study. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 25(6), 815–829. https://doi.org/10.1076/jcen.25.6.815.16469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Schneps, M. H., Thomson, J. M., Sonnert, G., Pomplun, M., Chen, C., & Heffner-Wong, A. (2013). Shorter lines facilitate reading in those who struggle. PLoS ONE, 8(8), e71161. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Schotter, E. R., Tran, R., & Rayner, K. (2014). Don’t believe what you read (only once): comprehension is supported by regressions during reading. Psychological Science, 25, 1218–1226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614531148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Smith-Spark, J. H. (2018). Executive functions in adults with dyslexia. In P. Colé, L. Duncan, & E. Cavalli (Eds.), Dyslexia at university: theoretical insights and practical solutions. De Boeck Supérieur.

  45. Smith-Spark, J. H., & Gordon, R. (2019). Memory in adults with dyslexia. In P. Colé, L. Duncan, & E. Cavalli (Eds.), Dyslexia at university: theoretical insights and practical solutions. De Boeck Supérieur.

  46. Staub, A., White, S. J., Drieghe, D., Hollway, E. C., & Rayner, K. (2010). Distributional effects of word frequency on eye fixation durations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(5), 1280–1293. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Suárez-Coalla, P., & Cuetos, F. (2015). Reading difficulties in Spanish adults with dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 65(1), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-015-0101-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Tronbacke, B. (1997). Guidelines for easy-to-read materials. IFLA.

  49. Wagner, R. K., Torgensen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., & Pearson, N. A. (2013). Comprehensive test of phonological processing-second edition. PRO-ED.

  50. Whaley, C. P. (1978). Word—nonword classification time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17(2), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(78)90110-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Yaneva, V. (2016). Text and web accessibility for people with autism spectrum disorder [Doctoral dissertation, University of Wolverhampton]. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/77612845.pdf

Download references

Funding

This research was supported by the V Plan Propio de Investigación y Transferencia of the University of Seville (PPI2016-IV.5) and the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation Grant PGC2018-096094-B-I00. The work of M. R. C. is supported by a research grant from the University of Seville (PP2018-10696).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miriam Rivero-Contreras.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

ESM 1

(DOCX 66 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rivero-Contreras, M., Engelhardt, P.E. & Saldaña, D. An experimental eye-tracking study of text adaptation for readers with dyslexia: effects of visual support and word frequency. Ann. of Dyslexia (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-021-00217-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Dyslexia
  • Eye movements
  • Lexical simplification
  • Sentence processing
  • Visual support