Results and Conclusions: In replication of previous results, both motion paradigms differentiated dyslexic participants from controls. There was no clear 'winner' in terms of discriminatory power between these groups, and both paradigms were associated to a roughly equal degree with measures of dyslexic traits. The random dot paradigm exhibited more robust psychometric qualities. There was no association between performance on these two tasks across subjects.

Conclusions: This study bolsters evidence for the existence of a generalized (across motion paradigms) visual motion processing deficit in dyslexia. This deficit appears generalized enough so as to be found across motion paradigms that do not show an association with each other across participants. No evidence was found for these two paradigms being sensitive to individual differences in related visual-motion-processing capacities.