ArticleScientific reports2024
Pulsed lighting for adults with Dyslexia: very limited impact, confined to individuals with severe reading deficits.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Flickering lenses enhance reading performance through placebo effect.Psychological research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The goal of this study is to evaluate the impact of pulsed lighting on the reading performance of young adults with dyslexia. A total of 42 participants were recruited, including individuals diagnosed with developmental dyslexia and adults without reported reading difficulties. The severity of each participant's reading deficit was assessed on a continuous scale using a reading impairment score, derived from four reading tests: an isolated-word reading test, a pseudoword reading test, and two reading fluency tests. The impairment score ranged from 0 (no impairment) to 4 (severe impairment across all tests). To examine the potential effect of pulsed lighting, we measured (1) sentence reading speed, expressed as a reading accessibility index (ACC), and (2) text comprehension, expressed as a comprehension score. These measures were taken under three lighting conditions: standard lighting, pulsed lighting, and a combination of the two. Linear mixed-effects models were applied to assess the effects of lighting on ACC and comprehension, controlling for the reading impairment score. We found no effect of lighting conditions on either ACC or comprehension, except in the most impaired readers, who showed a small but significant increase of 7% in ACC. However, even with pulsed lighting, impaired readers did not reach the performance level of skilled adult readers. In conclusion, the study did not demonstrate a clear positive impact of pulsed lighting on the reading skills of adults with dyslexia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.