CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 159Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderReading and Literacy DevelopmentDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

Time perception, phonological skills and executive function in children with dyslexia and/or ADHD symptoms

Open access
Gooch, Debbie, Snowling, Margaret, Hulme, Charles·2011·Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
DOI 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02312.xPMC PMC3412207
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Deficits in time perception (the ability to judge the duration of time intervals) have been found in children with both attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and dyslexia. This paper investigates time perception, phonological skills and executive functions in children with dyslexia and/or ADHD symptoms (AS). Method: Children with dyslexia‐only ( n = 17), AS‐only ( n = 17), comorbid dyslexia+AS ( n = 25), and typically developing controls ( n = 42), matched for age and non‐verbal ability, were assessed on measures of phonological skills, executive function and time perception (duration discrimination and time reproduction). Results: Children with dyslexia were impaired on measures of phonological skill and duration discrimination compared to children without dyslexia (though problems on duration discrimination appeared to be attributable to mild symptoms of inattention in this group). In contrast, children with AS exhibited impairments on measures of both time perception and executive function compared to children without AS. Children with dyslexia+AS showed an additive combination of the deficits associated with dyslexia‐only and AS‐only. Conclusions: Dyslexia and AS appear to be associated with distinct patterns of cognitive deficit, which are present in combination in children with dyslexia+AS.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Children with dyslexia and/or ADHD symptoms (AS) showed distinct cognitive profiles: dyslexia was linked to phonological deficits, while AS was linked to executive-function and time-perception deficits. Comorbid dyslexia+AS showed an additive combination of both profiles rather than more severe or unique deficits.

Key findings

  • Dyslexia was associated with poorer phonological skills: significant main effects on phoneme deletion (F = 9.11, p < .01, ηp² = .09), nonword repetition (F = 9.15, p < .01, ηp² = .09), phonemic decoding (F = 32.62, p < .01, ηp² = .26), and digit recall (F = 5.26, p < .05, ηp² = .05).
  • AS was associated with executive-function/attention weaknesses: significant main effects on response variability (SDRT: F = 9.37, p < .01, ηp² = .10), listening recall (F = 4.72, p < .05, ηp² = .05), block recall (F = 3.95, p < .05, ηp² = .04), and sustained attention (Score!: F = 8.52, p < .01, ηp² = .09).
  • Time perception was impaired in both conditions: duration discrimination showed significant main effects of dyslexia (F = 5.10, p < .05, ηp² = .05) and AS (F = 4.00, p < .05, ηp² = .04); time reproduction error showed a significant AS main effect (F = 6.38, p < .05, ηp² = .07).
  • In a regression predicting duration discrimination thresholds (n = 98), inattention was the only unique predictor (unique R² = .05, p < .05); hyperactivity/impulsivity and literacy difficulty did not predict additional unique variance (R² = .00 and .01), with overall R² = .11.

Methods

  • Four groups of children aged 5.58–14.75 years (mean = 10.23, SD = 2.24) participated: dyslexia-only (n = 17), AS-only (n = 17), dyslexia+AS (n = 25), and typically developing controls (n = 42), matched for age and non-verbal ability.
  • Children completed measures of phonological skills (phoneme deletion, CNRep, phonemic decoding, digit recall), executive function (SSRT task, listening recall, block recall, Score!), and time perception (duration discrimination and time reproduction).
  • Analyses used 2 × 2 (dyslexia ± × AS ±) ANOVAs, planned comparisons, mixed ANOVA for time reproduction, and a simultaneous regression predicting duration discrimination from inattention, hyperactivity, and literacy difficulty.

Limitations

  • Stated in the paper: the lack of a diagnostic assessment of ADHD, including evidence of persistence and impairment, may restrict generalisability to other ADHD samples.
  • Stated in the paper: the study included just one measure of visuo-spatial memory (Block Recall), and other more attentionally demanding visuo-spatial memory tasks were not included.
  • Evident from the text: the AS group combined children with a prior clinical ADHD diagnosis (n = 15) and children recruited on parent/teacher concerns without a clinical diagnosis (n = 27); parent and teacher ratings were not available for all children, and two hyperactive/impulsive-only children were excluded from analyses.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02312.x

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

9 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Claims the paper makes

0 of 16 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Children with AS exhibited impairments on measures of executive function compared to children without AS.

    “In contrast, children with AS exhibited impairments on measures of both time perception and executive function compared to children without AS.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Children with dyslexia were impaired on duration discrimination compared to children without dyslexia.

    “Children with dyslexia were impaired on measures of phonological skill and duration discrimination compared to children without dyslexia”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Children with dyslexia were impaired on measures of phonological skill compared to children without dyslexia.

    “Children with dyslexia were impaired on measures of phonological skill and duration discrimination compared to children without dyslexia”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Children with AS exhibited impairments on measures of time perception compared to children without AS.

    “In contrast, children with AS exhibited impairments on measures of both time perception and executive function compared to children without AS.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingreasoning

    Children with dyslexia+AS showed an additive combination of the deficits associated with dyslexia-only and AS-only.

    “Children with dyslexia+AS showed an additive combination of the deficits associated with dyslexia-only and AS-only.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 14
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 9

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Neither hyperactivity/impulsivity nor literacy predicted additional unique variance in duration discrimination thresholds (r2 = .00 and .01, respectively).

    “and neither hyperactivity/impulsivity nor literacy predicted additional unique variance (r2 = .00 and .01, respectively).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The children classified as having ADHD symptoms (AS) based on rating scales have ADHD as intended, despite the lack of a diagnostic assessment.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Children with a diagnosis of ADHD tended to be rated by parents as showing more symptoms of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity than children without a diagnosis.

    “Furthermore, although children with a diagnosis of ADHD tended to be rated by parents as showing more symptoms of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity than children without a diagnosis, overall teacher ratings did not significantly differ between the groups and both groups were rated as having significantly more symptoms of ADHD than TD-controls”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    None of the interactions between target duration and either dyslexia or AS were significant (all Fs < 1).

    “but none of the interactions between target duration and either dyslexia or AS were significant (all Fs < 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Of the children with AS (n=42), 15 had previously received a clinical diagnosis of ADHD combined-type, in the absence of any other comorbid diagnosis, by an experienced multidisciplinary CAMHS team.

    “Of the children with AS (n = 42), 15 had previously received a clinical diagnosis of ADHD combined-type, in the absence of any other comorbid diagnosis, by an experienced multidisciplinary CAMHS team.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There were significant main effects of dyslexia but not AS on all measures of phonological skill (phoneme deletion, nonword repetition, phonemic decoding, and digit recall).

    “As expected, there were significant main effects of dyslexia but not AS on all the measures of phonological skill (phoneme deletion, nonword repetition, phonemic decoding and digit recall)”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
      “Consistent with our hypotheses, children with dyslexia showed weaknesses on measures of phoneme deletion, nonword repetition, nonword reading and phonological memory.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The comorbid dyslexia+AS group performed slightly but non-significantly better than the dyslexia-only group on phonemic decoding.

    “which appears to reflect the fact that the comorbid dyslexia+AS group actually perform slightly, but non-significantly, better than the dyslexia-only group on this task.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Children with dyslexia-only and AS-only performed similarly and less well than TD-controls on the duration discrimination task.

    “Children with dyslexia-only and AS-only performed similarly and less well than TD-controls on the duration discrimination task.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There were significant main effects of dyslexia and AS but no significant interaction on duration discrimination.

    “There were significant main effects of dyslexia and AS but no significant interaction.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The children classified as having ADHD symptoms (AS) based on rating scales have ADHD as intended, despite the lack of a diagnostic assessment.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Children with AS made large errors on the time reproduction task and showed deficits in duration discrimination.

    “Children with AS made large errors on the time reproduction task and showed deficits in duration discrimination.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The children classified as having ADHD symptoms (AS) based on rating scales have ADHD as intended, despite the lack of a diagnostic assessment.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There was no significant main effect of dyslexia and no significant interaction on the time reproduction task (TTRE).

    “There was no significant main effect of dyslexia and no significant interaction.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The proximal cognitive cause of dyslexia is a phonological deficit.

    “It is widely accepted that the proximal cognitive cause of dyslexia is a phonological deficit (Vellutino, Fletcher, Snowling, & Scanlon, 2004)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Vellutino, Fletcher, Snowling, & Scanlon, 2004

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The pattern that dyslexia-only and ADHD-only are associated with different patterns of cognitive impairment but both forms of impairment co-occur in the comorbid condition is consistent with the shared aetiology hypothesis.

    “Arguably, the pattern of findings just described (that dyslexia-only and ADHD-only are associated with different patterns of cognitive impairment but both forms of impairment co-occur in the comorbid condition) is consistent with this hypothesis.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    ADHD predominantly arises from an impairment in executive functions that affects both cognitive and motivational systems.

    “whereas the predominant account of ADHD sees it as arising from an impairment in executive functions that affects both cognitive and motivational systems (Barkley, 1997).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Barkley, 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Dyslexia was associated with deficits in phonological skills (phonological awareness, phonological memory and decoding) whereas AS was associated with increased response variability, deficits in attention and in visuo-spatial short-term memory (STM).

    “Dyslexia was associated with deficits in phonological skills (phonological awareness, phonological memory and decoding) whereas AS was associated with increased response variability, deficits in attention and in visuo-spatial short-term memory (STM)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The children classified as having ADHD symptoms (AS) based on rating scales have ADHD as intended, despite the lack of a diagnostic assessment.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Children with dyslexia+AS failed to provide support for the 'cognitive subtype' hypothesis because they exhibited neither different, nor more severe, deficits than children with either pure condition.

    “They also failed to provide support for the ‘cognitive subtype’ hypothesis (e.g., de Jong et al., 2006; Rucklidge & Tannock, 2002) because children with dyslexia+AS exhibited neither different, nor more severe, deficits than children with either pure condition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites de Jong et al., 2006

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Rucklidge & Tannock, 2002

      Not checked in the free run.

    • Rests on an assumption: The children classified as having ADHD symptoms (AS) based on rating scales have ADHD as intended, despite the lack of a diagnostic assessment.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The tracking algorithm succeeded.

    “The mean probability of responding (not inhibiting) on a stop-signal trial was .52, indicating that the tracking algorithm succeeded.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Slightly poor duration discrimination also characterised children with dyslexia, probably reflecting mild impairments of attention in this group.

    “Slightly poor duration discrimination also characterised children with dyslexia, probably reflecting mild impairments of attention in this group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Since children with dyslexia+AS performed poorly on measures of executive function as well as on phonological tasks, our findings refute the 'phenocopy' hypothesis.

    “Since children with dyslexia+AS performed poorly on measures of executive function as well as on phonological tasks, our findings refute the ‘phenocopy’ hypothesis (Pennington et al., 1993).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pennington et al., 1993

      Not checked in the free run.

    • Rests on an assumption: The children classified as having ADHD symptoms (AS) based on rating scales have ADHD as intended, despite the lack of a diagnostic assessment.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The lack of a diagnostic assessment of ADHD, which includes evidence of persistence and impairment, is a limitation in this study and may restrict the generalisability of the results to other ADHD samples.

    “It is important to note that the lack of a diagnostic assessment of ADHD, which includes evidence of persistence and impairment, is a limitation in this study and may restrict the generalisability of the results to other ADHD samples.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The mean probability of responding (not inhibiting) on a stop-signal trial was .52.

    “The mean probability of responding (not inhibiting) on a stop-signal trial was .52, indicating that the tracking algorithm succeeded.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Three children with AS-only, 5 with dyslexia+AS and 3 TD-controls displayed extreme performance on the duration discrimination.

    “Three children with AS-only, 5 with dyslexia+AS and 3 TD-controls displayed extreme performance on the duration discrimination (either because of very good or very poor performance).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Children with dyslexia-only and AS-only exhibited mild symptoms of the other disorder, even though they did not meet criteria for classification.

    “These findings suggest that the children with dyslexia-only and AS-only exhibited mild symptoms of the other disorder, even though they did not meet our criteria for classification.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
22 of 22

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The children classified as having ADHD symptoms (AS) based on rating scales have ADHD as intended, despite the lack of a diagnostic assessment.

    “The number of inattentive and hyperactive/impulsive symptoms associated with the child’s highest overall ADHD rating was used as a measure of AS”
    “the lack of a diagnostic assessment of ADHD, which includes evidence of persistence and impairment, is a limitation in this study”
1 of 1

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Accumulating evidence indicates that timing functions are impaired in ADHD, dyslexia, and autism.

    “accumulating evidence indicates that timing functions are impaired in a variety of developmental disorders including ADHD [32,33], dyslexia [34], and autism [35,36].”

    From The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time” (2020) · cites this paper as [34]

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • p-value fits an unstated one-tailed test: t (15) = 2.82, p < .01

    Minor

    The paper reports p < .01 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .013 (two-tailed). The reported value is what a one-tailed test gives, but the paper does not say near this result that a one-tailed test was used.

    Reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .013

1 of 1

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upt(15) = 2.82reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .013

    “t (15) = 2.82, p < .01”

  • Consistentt(39) = 2.39reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .022

    “t (39) = 2.39, p < .05”

  • Consistentt(40) = 1.89reported p = .07 · recomputed p = .066

    “t (40) = 1.89, p = .07”

  • Consistentt(40) = 1.63reported p = .11 · recomputed p = .111

    “t (40) = 1.63, p = .11”

  • Consistentt(40) = 2.03reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .049

    “t (40) = 2.03, p < .05”

  • Consistentt(16) = 3.7reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .002

    “t (16) = 3.70, p < .01”

  • Consistentt(40) = 0.43reported p = .67 · recomputed p = .670

    “t (40) = .43, p = .67”

  • ConsistentF(2.86, 254.45) = 39.78reported p < .01 · recomputed p < .001

    “F (2.86, 254.45) = 39.78, p < .01”

  • Consistentt(40) = 1.47reported p = .15 · recomputed p = .149

    “t (40) = 1.47, p = .15”

9 of 9

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Dyslexia-only SSRT does not equal MRT minus SSD

    Minor

    The paper defines SSRT as mean reaction time minus mean stop-signal delay. For the dyslexia-only group, 663.72 − 361.06 = 302.66 ms, not the reported 336.47 ms.

    Reported 336.47 · recomputed 302.66

  • Phoneme-deletion task has conflicting item counts

    Minor

    The methods say the phoneme-deletion task had 24 items, whereas Table 3 labels its score as being out of 18.

  • Reported stop-trial response probability conflicts with inhibition probabilities

    Minor

    The text reports a mean probability of responding of .52. Table 3 reports inhibition probabilities of .51-.54 for all four groups; their sample-size-weighted mean is about .53, implying a response probability of about .47, not .52.

  • Digit-recall group means conflict with the reported ANOVA

    Minor

    The AS-only digit-recall mean is 39.00, compared with 29.98 for controls, with 17 and 40 children respectively and SDs of 6.59 and 4.42. Those group statistics, together with the other two groups in the row, are incompatible with the reported near-zero AS main effect (F = .04) and small interaction (F = 1.33).

4 of 4

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Elliott C.D., 1996, British Ability Scales II (BAS II)
  2. Gathercole S.E., 1996, Children’s test of Nonword Repetition (CNRep)
  3. Manly T., 1999, The Test of Everyday Attention for Children (TEA‐Ch)
  4. Pickering S.J., 2001, Working Memory Test Battery for Children (WMTB‐C)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gooch, D., Snowling, M., & Hulme, C.
Affiliations
University of York (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-09-23
Volume
52
Issue
2
Pages
195-203
ISSN
  • 0021-9630 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7610
DOI
10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02312.x
PMC
PMC3412207
OpenAlex
W2114204835
Cited by
157
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 10
FWCI
5.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Surrey Research Insight Open Access (The University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Bank (Australian Catholic University) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (082036)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
Keywords
time perception, duration discrimination, time reproduction, phonological skills, executive function, dyslexia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, comorbidities, inattention, children
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Dyslexia, Female, Humans, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Phonetics, Reading, Time Perception, Verbal Learning, Comorbidity, Case-Control Studies, Executive Function

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-08.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-08.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review