On a failure to replicate: Methodologically close, but not close enough. A response to Hogbenet al.

[1]  J. Hogben,et al.  Blurring the image does not help disabled readers , 1996, Vision Research.

[2]  M. Williams,et al.  Perceptual consequences of a temporal processing deficit in reading disabled children. , 1990, Journal of the American Optometric Association.

[3]  R. Kennedy,et al.  Problems With Individual Difference Measures Based on Some Componential Cognitive Paradigms , 1989 .

[4]  F. Martin,et al.  Flicker Contrast Sensitivity in Normal and Specifically Disabled Readers , 1987, Perception.

[5]  F. Martin,et al.  A theoretical and experimental case for a visual deficit in specific reading disability , 1986 .

[6]  David Badcock,et al.  Contrast sensitivity functions and specific reading disability , 1982, Neuropsychologia.

[7]  D. Badcock,et al.  Specific reading disability: differences in contrast sensitivity as a function of spatial frequency. , 1980, Science.

[8]  Stanford E. Taylor.  Eye Movements in Reading: Facts and Fallacies , 1965 .

[9]  M. Tinker,et al.  Recent studies of eye movements in reading. , 1958, Psychological bulletin.

[10]  C. Casco,et al.  Visual Search in good and poor readers:effect with single and combined features targets , 1996 .

[11]  J. May,et al.  The effects of spatial filtering and contrast reduction on visual search times in good and poor readers , 1995, Vision Research.

[12]  W. Lovegrove,et al.  Visual temporal processing deficits in specific reading disability. , 1993 .

[13]  Julie R. Brannan,et al.  Applications of parallel processing in vision , 1992 .

[14]  J G May,et al.  Spatial localization discrepancies: a visual deficiency in poor readers. , 1990, The American journal of psychology.

[15]  M. Williams,et al.  Visual masking as a measure of temporal processing in normal and disabled readers , 1989 .