Organizations: Sony Computer Sciences Laboratories, Paris, France · Institut de l’Audition - Institut Pasteur, Paris, France · Université Paris Cité, France · Centro Ricerca e Cura di Roma, Italy · Sapienza Università di Roma, Italy · I-Lab, Rome, Italy
Neurodiverse learners often require reading supports, yet increasing scaffold richness can sometimes overload attention and working memory rather than improve comprehension. Grounded in the Construction-Integration model and a contingent scaffolding perspective, we examine how structural versus semantic scaffolds shape comprehension and reading experience in a supervised inclusive context. Using an adapted reading interface, we compared four modalities: unmodified text, sentence-segmented text, segmented text with pictograms, and segmented text with pictograms plus keyword labels. In a within-subject pilot with 14 primary-school learners with special educational needs and disabilities, we measured reading comprehension using standardized questions and collected brief child- and therapist-reported experience measures alongside open-ended feedback. Results highlight heterogeneous responses as some learners showed patterns consistent with benefits from segmentation and pictograms, while others showed patterns consistent with increased coordination costs when visual scaffolds were introduced. Experience ratings showed limited differences between modalities, with some apparent effects linked to clinical complexity, particularly for perceived ease of understanding. Open-ended feedback of the learners frequently requested simpler wording and additional visual supports. These findings suggest that no single scaffold is universally optimal, reinforcing the need for calibrated, adjustable scaffolding and provide design implications for human-AI co-regulation in supervised inclusive reading contexts.
Reading comprehension presents a significant challenge for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND), often requiring intensive one-on-one reading support. To assist therapists in scaling this support, we developed a multilingual, AI-powered interface that automatically enhances text with visual scaffolding. This system dynamically identifies key concepts and maps them to contextually relevant pictograms, supporting learners across languages. We evaluated the system across five typologically diverse languages (English, French, Italian, Spanish, and Arabic), through multilingual coverage analysis, expert clinical review by speech therapists and special education professionals, and latency assessment. Evaluation results indicate high pictogram coverage and visual scaffolding density across the five languages. Expert audits suggested that automatically selected pictograms were semantically appropriate, with combined correct and acceptable ratings exceeding 95% for the four European languages and approximately 90% for Arabic despite reduced pictogram repository coverage. System latency remained within interactive thresholds suitable for real-time educational use. These findings support the technical viability, semantic safety, and acceptability of automated multimodal scaffolding to improve accessibility for neurodiverse learners.
Published agent capability scores conflate what a model can do with what its scaffold lets it do, and the magnitude of this elicitation gap is not well characterized under controlled conditions. This study executes a pre-registered controlled comparison of three scaffolds (ReAct, a Planner-Actor-Rater multi-agent design, and planner-then-executor) across five models from three providers (Claude Opus 4.7, Sonnet 4.6, Haiku 4.5; Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview; GPT-5.5) on GAIA validation Levels 1 and 2, holding tasks and conditions fixed, with three attempts per question. Scaffold choice alone moves measured accuracy by as much as 28 percentage points within a single model (Opus, Level 2, robust slice), confirming the pre-registered hypothesis that scaffold variation produces gaps of at least 10 points. The pre-registered prediction that more capable models would be less scaffold-sensitive is rejected in direction: scaffold effects vary significantly by model in every dataset slice, but the most capable Anthropic model gains the most from structured scaffolds at the harder level, and tier-scaling holds only at Level 1 under the robust slice. The multi-agent advantage over ReAct at Level 2 appears within the Anthropic family but not for the cross-provider models, making model family rather than capability tier the conditioning variable, and the predicted planner-executor advantage on file-reading tasks is falsified. Structured scaffolds make fewer tool calls yet recover more often from mid-trajectory errors at the harder level, and a single cell (Gemini with planner-then-executor) is the cheapest at both levels and the most accurate at Level 2. These results indicate that single-scaffold capability numbers are scaffold-conditional estimates and that the elicitation gap is not guaranteed to shrink as models improve.
Large language model (LLM) reading assistants are increasingly used in settings that require interpretation rather than simple retrieval. In these contexts, the central risk is not only error or unsafe output, but interpretive displacement: the transfer of meaning-making work from reader to system. This paper examines that problem through the concept of epistemic guardrails, defined here as constraints on how an artificial intelligence (AI) system participates in reading and interpretation. Using TextWalk, a minimal reading-support prototype designed as a co-reader rather than an answer-provider, the study applies a fixed ten-prompt protocol to twelve analytical texts spanning four categories of argumentative prose. The protocol escalates from baseline reading support to interpretive inquiry, boundary stress, and explicit shortcut pressure, enabling guardrails to be examined as behavioral properties observable in interaction rather than as static instruction features. Results show strong baseline stability, measurable strain during interpretive inquiry, partial recovery under direct boundary stress, and late-stage stabilization under escalation pressure. The most consequential weaknesses did not appear as overt collapse, but in a middle zone between support and substitution, where the system remained grounded and pedagogical while redistributing too much interpretive labor away from the reader. The paper contributes a protocol for evaluating epistemic guardrails as interactional phenomena in conversational AI reading assistants, an empirical account of their behavioral dynamics under pressure, and an emerging model of interpretive boundary function in reading-support AI.