Adolescents reading texts in LexiaD, a dyslexia-specific Cyrillic font: A mobile eye-tracking study

Abstract

Recently, LexiaD, a dyslexia-specific Cyrillic font, was tested alongside the widely used Arial font in an experiment during which adolescents with and without dyslexia silently read sentences on a computer screen (Alexeeva et al., 2022). LexiaD showed a worse performance than Arial at the beginning of the experiment, but by the end of it, LexiaD demonstrated a positive effect in feature extraction and similar performance in lexical access, text integration, and global reading processing. We suggest that Arial’s initial advantage can be explained either by its familiarity or by its design features. The current study aims to test these assumptions in adolescents without dyslexia by comparing LexiaD with two popular fonts familiar to adolescents: Times New Roman and Roboto (a default font for the Google applications that is similar to Arial). Participants silently read printed versions of three texts (one in each of the three fonts) while their eye movements were recorded using a mobile eye tracker (Pupil Core glasses). In reading speed measures, Roboto outperformed LexiaD, whereas we found no evidence that Times New Roman’s performance was better than that of LexiaD. Moreover, there was no evidence that the control fonts differed in terms of subjective font familiarity. Therefore, we speculate that it was the design features that contributed the most to Arial becoming a facilitating font in the previous experiment. A study that investigates the efficiency of LexiaD, Arial/Roboto, and Times New Roman in a less experienced group (with participants less accustomed to particular fonts) is required to replicate our results. Involving people with dyslexia in future studies is extremely important.