1. Maximizing Differences in Types to Improve Dyslexics’
Reading Performances
Emma Brambilla, Armando Toscano

2. 1. Why don’t people read well?

3. What reading is: McClelland & Rumelhart, 1981
#Keywords:
connectionism
word level, letter level, feature level
visual and acoustic input
higher level input
word superiority effect

4. What reading is: Marslen-Wilson, 1980
#Keywords:
modularism
on-line interactive processing
lexicon, syntax, previous knowledge
context effect

5. What reading is: Levelt, 1992
#Keywords:
global
process
lexicon, lexical concept, phonetic
program
lexical errors

6. The tuning orchestra hypothesis

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 2. How can we convert all this
into an intervention?

11. What an intervention should be
I can help you
Law 170/2010
Specialists
Teachers
Family
Child

12. What an intervention should be
I can help you
Law 170/2010
Why do they always
concentrate on me?

13. What interventions actually are
It’s your problem
Law 170/2010
Specialists
Teachers
Family
Child

14. What interventions actually are
It’s your problem
I’m not treated like the others
Law 170/2010

15. What an intervention could be
Who is dyslexic?

16. Inclusive interventions
Teachers Family
Technological support
Specialists

17. Fonts actually in use
Rello & Baeza-Yates, 2013
Reading time
OpenDyslexia
Arial
OpenDyslexia Italic
Fixation time
Courier
Verdana
Arial
Preferences
Garamond
OpenDyslexia Italic

18. Fonts actually in use
Renske de Leew, 2010
Dyslexie
Same speed Better accuracy

19. 2. Our research

20. A dyslexic’s perspective
Visual noise
Italic Cursive Aesthetics

21. A dyslexic’s perspective
Visual noise
p q b d I l

22. A dyslexic’s perspective
Visual noise
Italic Cursive Aesthetics
p q b d
extrinsic
intrinsic I l

23. Our font
extrinsic visual noise
intrinsicvisualnoise
p Q i L
B d
Dyslexia™

24. The “key” metaphor

25. Method
Sample: 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:
accuracy
speed

26. Design
Variable 1: rapidity
Variable 2: accuracy
Reading
Performance
Variable 3: LD
Variable 4: age
Variable 5: scholarization Variable 6: complexity
Variable 7: differences in types

27. Results
rapidity: F=11.89, 𝛂=.001 accuracy: F=15.87, 𝛂=.001

28. Results
LD nonLD
Arial poor good
Dyslexia™ good better!

29. Inclusive interventions
Teachers Family
Technological support
Specialists

30. Inclusive interventions
Teachers Family
Technological support
Specialists
🎯

31. Inclusive interventions
Teachers Family
Technological support
Specialists
🎯

32. research@armandotoscano.com
Thakn you!

33. Appendix

36. 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