{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014899211218229623, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0043821209465381246, 'mean_word_length': 5.106951871657754, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Visual magnocellular deficits in dyslexia.

There is now much evidence that the visual magnocellular system in many dyslexics is slightly less sensitive than in controls. We were surprised therefore by the conclusion of Amitay et al . (2002) that the dyslexics in their study did not suffer from a magnocellular visual deficit, when actually their results seem to provide quite strong evidence that their dyslexics did have such a deficit. Their opposite conclusion seems to have resulted from their strong assumptions about how M impairments should be manifested in a dyslexic population and from the way in which they scaled dyslexic performance.

They assume that a magnocellular deficit should produce a totally consistent pattern of results across a variety of different tasks designed to assess magnocellular functioning, and that any variability implies that no magnocellular deficit exists. This is unwarranted because a mild magnocellular deficit could be obscured by measurement ‘noise’ which may lead to inconsistent performance. We can estimate from their table 2 the power of their study to detect differences (Amitay et al ., …