Abstract
ABSTRACTThis study investigated in a longitudinal design how 74 Dutch children with dyslexia and 39 typically developing peers differed in sequential versus spatial implicit learning and overnight consolidation, and it examined whether implicit learning related to (pseudo)word reading development in Grades 5 and 6. The results showed that sequential, but not spatial, learning predicted growth in reading skills in children with and without dyslexia. Sequential implicit learning was also related to growth in pseudoword reading skills during an intervention in children with dyslexia, retrospectively. Furthermore, children with dyslexia had longer reaction times in general but did not differ from typical readers in how well or how quickly they learned either on an implicit learning task or in their overnight consolidation.
Highlights
An important part of reading instruction involves explicit teaching of correspondences between phonemes and graphemes (Ehri et al, 2001), but there are aspects of reading acquisition that involve implicit processes, such as learning from context and automatizing reading skills (Nicolson, Fawcett, Brookes, & Needle, 2010)
This study investigated in a longitudinal design how 74 Dutch children with dyslexia and 39 typically developing peers differed in sequential versus spatial implicit learning and overnight consolidation, and it examined whether implicit learning related toword reading development in Grades 5 and 6
Two typical readers and five children with dyslexia scored below 70% correct on Day 1, and data from these children were excluded from the analyses of reaction times
Summary
An important part of reading instruction involves explicit teaching of correspondences between phonemes and graphemes (Ehri et al, 2001), but there are aspects of reading acquisition that involve implicit processes, such as learning from context and automatizing reading skills (Nicolson, Fawcett, Brookes, & Needle, 2010). Lum et al (2013) showed in a meta-analysis of 14 implicit learning studies that participants with dyslexia were outperformed by typical readers on the SRT task. The authors found a mediumweighted effect size (.449) for the SRT task, but there was substantial heterogeneity between studylevel effect sizes (varying from −.710 to 1.172), and not all studies included in the meta-analysis found significant differences between participants with dyslexia and typical readers This lack of a significant difference between participants with dyslexia and typical readers is found in more recent implicit learning studies comparing adults (Henderson & Warmington, 2017) or children (Staels & van den Broeck, 2017; Vakil et al, 2013) with and without dyslexia. Spatial implicit learning has not been related to the development of reading
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
