Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T10:49:11.001Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Visual and phonological processes in poor readers' word recognition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Egbert Assink,
Merel Lam and
Paul Knuijt
Egbert Assink*
Affiliation:
Utrecht University
Merel Lam
Affiliation:
Utrecht University
Paul Knuijt
Affiliation:
Utrecht University
*
Department of Psychology, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In two experiments, poor and normal Dutch readers, matched for reading age, were presented with visual matching tasks on a computer screen. In Experiment 1, word and pseudoword letter strings were used. The strings consisted of either uppercase/lowercase congruent (e.g., o/O) or uppercase/lowercase incongruent letters (e.g., a/A). Poor readers needed significantly more time to decode uppercase/lowercase incongruent pairs, especially when the pairs consisted of pseudowords. Experiment 2 investigated whether this effect was phonologically or visually mediated. Strings of letters, digit strings, and abstract figure symbols were used. Letter strings included words, pseudowords, and nonwords. Poor readers needed more time to match incongruent letter case pairs, consistent with Experiment 1. Poor readers performed more poorly on letter and digit string matching but not on the figure–symbol matching task. No evidence was found for the differential use of orthographic information in terms of multiletter constraints. The combined data on the letter, digit, and graphic symbol matching experiments suggest that an inadequate command of grapheme–phoneme associations is a critical factor in reading disability. Evidence for poor visual processing as an independent source of reading disability could not be established.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , July 1998, pp. 471 - 487
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Adams, M. J. (1979). Models of word recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 133–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besner, D., Coltheart, M., & Davelaar, E. (1984). Basic processes in reading: Computation of abstract letter identities. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 38, 126–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boder, E. (1973). Developmental dyslexia: A diagnostic approach based on three atypical reading spelling patterns. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 15, 663–687.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. (1983). Categorising sounds and learning to read: A causal connection. Nature, 301, 419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breitmeyer, B. (1984). Visual masking: An integrative approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brus, B. T., & Voeten, M. (1972). Eén-minuut-test [One-minute test]. Nijmegen: Berkhout.Google Scholar
Bryant, P., & Bradley, L. (1985). Children's reading problems: Psychology and education. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chase, C. H. (1996). A visual deficit model of developmental dyslexia. In Chase, C. H., Rosen, G. D., & Sherman, G. F. (Eds.), Developmental dyslexia: Neural, cognitive, and genetic mechanisms. Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (1981). Visual and name coding in dyslexic children. Psychological Research, 43, 201–218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fletcher, C. M., & Prior, M. R. (1990). The rule learning behaviour of reading disabled and normal children as a function of task characteristics and instruction. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 50, 39–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fox, E. (1994). Grapheme-phoneme correspondences in dyslexic and matched control readers. British Journal of Psychology, 85, 41–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gough, P. B., Ehri, L. C., & Treiman, R. (1992). Reading acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Livingstone, M. S., & Hubel, D. H. (1987). Psychophysical evidence for separate channels for the perception of form, color, movement, and depth. Journal of Neuroscience, 7, 3416–3468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lovegrove, W., Garzia, R. P., & Nicholson, S. B. (1990). Experimental evidence for a transient system deficit in specific reading disability. Journal of the American Optometric Association, 61, 137–146.Google ScholarPubMed
Lovegrove, W., & Macfarlane, T. (1990). The effect of text presentation in dyslexic and normal readers. Perception, 19, A46.Google Scholar
Morrison, F. J., & Manis, F. R. (1982). Cognitive processes and reading disability: A critique and proposal. In Brainerd, C. J. & Pressley, M. (Eds.), Verbal processes in children: Progress in cognitive development research (pp. 59–93). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orton, S. T. (1925). “Word-blindness” in school children. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, 14, 581–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orton, S. T. (1928). Specific reading disability – Strephosymbolia. Journal of the American Medical Association, 90, 1095–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, W. (1988). Micro Experimental Laboratory: An integrated system for IBM PC compatibles. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 20, 206–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snowling, M. J. (1980). Development of grapheme-phoneme correspondence in normal and dyslectic readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 29, 294–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snowling, M. J. (1987). Dyslexia: A cognitive developmental perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., & Cunningham, A. E. (1992). Studying the consequences of literacy within a literate society: The cognitive correlates of print exposure. Memory and Cognition, 20 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, M. M. (1989). Convenient viewing and normal reading. In Elsendoom, B. A. G. & Bouma, H. (Eds.), Working models of human perception (pp. 291–315). London: Academic.Google Scholar
Vellutino, F. R. (1980). Dyslexia: Perceptual deficiency or perceptual inefficiency? In Kavanagh, J. F. & Venezky, R. L. (Eds.), Orthography, reading and dyslexia (pp. 251–271). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Vellutino, F. R. (1987). Dyslexia. Scientific American, 256(3), 20–28.Google Scholar
Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon, D. M. (1982). Verbal processing in poor and normal readers. In Brainerd, C. J. & Pressley, M. (Eds.), Verbal processes in children: Progress in cognitive development research (pp. 189–264). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willows, D., Kruk, R., & Corcos, E. (1993). Are there differences between disabled and normal readers in their processing of visual information? In Willows, D., Kruk, R., & Corcos, E. (Eds.), Visual processes in reading and reading disabilities (pp. 265–285). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
WISC-R. (1986). Nederlandstalige Uitgave. Bewerking van de WISC-R (1974) Wechsler, van D. door de WISC-R projectgroep. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Wolf, M. (1991). Naming-speed and reading: The contribution of the cognitive neurosciences. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, M., Pfeil, C., Lotz, R., & Biddle, K. (1994). Towards a more universal understanding of the developmental dyslexias: The contribution of orthographic factors. In Berninger, V. W. (Ed.), The varieties of orthographic knowledge: Vol. 1. Theoretical and developmental issuesI (pp. 137–171). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar