Space representation in children with dyslexia and children without dyslexia: contribution of line bisection and circle centering tasks.
A quick paper-and-pencil line bisection reveals a seesaw spatial bias that marks many kids with dyslexia.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team asked the kids with dyslexia and 30 without to draw one line through the exact middle of paper lines and circles. Lines were placed left, center, or right on the page. Circle tasks used both hands to check for body-side bias.
Each child did 24 line cuts and 24 circle hits. The researchers measured how far the mark missed true center in millimeters.
What they found
Kids with dyslexia sliced right of center on middle and right lines, but left of center on far-left lines. Non-dyslexic kids stayed near center no matter where the line sat.
On circles, the dyslexia group also leaned right and showed hand-to-hand differences, hinting at body-space confusion. Controls stayed centered and symmetrical.
How this fits with other research
Tang et al. (2023) pooled 47 studies and found a steady visual-attention gap in dyslexia. Their meta-score backs the zig-zag bias Stephanie's team saw with a simple ruler task.
Miltenberger et al. (2013), working the same year, showed dyslexic kids also learn finger-tapping sequences slower. Together the papers map two separate glitches: space snap-judgment and motor habit memory.
Wang et al. (2025) later added ADHD to the mix and revealed messy handwriting. Their data extend Stephanie's finding: when dyslexia travels with ADHD, spatial-motor noise gets louder.
Why it matters
You can copy the line-bisection screen in under two minutes. Place three horizontal lines on one sheet, hand the child a pencil, and score right-left error. A flip-flop pattern—right miss on center line, left miss on far-left line—flags the dyslexic attention signature and tells you to build reading tasks that anchor left margins and cut visual clutter.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Tape three lines on a page—left, middle, right—have the learner mark centers; note right-left error pattern before starting reading trials.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Line bisection tasks (different space locations and different line lengths) and circle centering tasks (visuo-proprioceptive and proprioceptive explorations, with left or right starting positions) were used to investigate space representation in children with dyslexia and children without dyslexia. In line bisection, children with dyslexia showed a significant rightward bias for central and right-sided locations and a leftward bias for left-sided location. Furthermore, the spatial context processing was asymmetrically more efficient in the left space. In children without dyslexia, no significant bias was observed in central lines but the spatial context processing was symmetrical in both spaces. When the line length varied, no main effect was shown. These results strengthen the 'inverse pseudoneglect' hypothesis in dyslexia. In the lateral dimension of the circle centering tasks, children showed a response bias in the direction of the starting hand location for proprioceptive condition. For radial dimension, the children showed a forward bias in visuo-proprioceptive condition and more backward error in proprioceptive condition. Children with dyslexia showed a forward bias in clockwise exploration and more accurate performance in counterclockwise exploration for left starting position which may be in accordance with leftward asymmetrical spatial context processing in line bisection. These results underline the necessity to use the line bisection task with different locations as an appropriate experimental paradigm to study lateral representational bias in dyslexia. The contribution of the present results in the understanding of space representation in children with dyslexia and children without dyslexia is discussed in terms of attentional processes and neuroanatomical substrate.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2013 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.08.031