Jones Manon W, Obregón Mateo, Louise Kelly M, Branigan Holly P
Department of Psychology (School: Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences), University of Edinburgh, 7 George Square, Edinburgh EH89JZ, UK.
Cognition. 2008 Dec;109(3):389-407. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.10.005. Epub 2008 Nov 18.
The relationship between rapid automatized naming (RAN) and reading fluency is well documented (see Wolf, M. & Bowers, P.G. (1999). The double-deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 415-438, for a review), but little is known about which component processes are important in RAN, and why developmental dyslexics show longer latencies on these tasks. Researchers disagree as to whether these delays are caused by impaired phonological processing or whether extra-phonological processes also play a role (e.g., Clarke, P., Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. (2005). Individual differences in RAN and reading: a response timing analysis. Journal of Research in Reading, 28(2), 73-86; Wolf, M., Bowers, P.G., & Biddle, K. (2000). Naming-speed processes, timing, and reading: a conceptual review. Journal of learning disabilities, 33(4), 387-407). We conducted an eye-tracking study that manipulated phonological and visual information (as representative of extra-phonological processes) in RAN. Results from linear mixed (LME) effects analyses showed that both phonological and visual processes influence naming-speed for both dyslexic and non-dyslexic groups, but the influence on dyslexic readers is greater. Moreover, dyslexic readers' difficulties in these domains primarily emerge in a measure that explicitly includes the production phase of naming. This study elucidates processes underpinning RAN performance in non-dyslexic readers and pinpoints areas of difficulty for dyslexic readers. We discuss these findings with reference to phonological and extra-phonological hypotheses of naming-speed deficits.
快速自动命名(RAN)与阅读流畅性之间的关系已有充分记录(有关综述,请参阅Wolf, M. & Bowers, P.G. (1999). 发展性阅读障碍的双重缺陷假说。《教育心理学杂志》,91(3), 415 - 438),但对于RAN中哪些成分过程很重要,以及为什么发展性阅读障碍者在这些任务上表现出更长的潜伏期,人们了解甚少。研究人员对于这些延迟是由语音处理受损引起,还是非语音过程也起作用存在分歧(例如,Clarke, P., Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. (2005). RAN与阅读中的个体差异:反应时间分析。《阅读研究杂志》,28(2), 73 - 86;Wolf, M., Bowers, P.G., & Biddle, K. (2000). 命名速度过程、时间和阅读:概念综述。《学习障碍杂志》,33(4), 387 - 407)。我们进行了一项眼动追踪研究,该研究在RAN中操纵了语音和视觉信息(作为非语音过程的代表)。线性混合(LME)效应分析的结果表明,语音和视觉过程都影响诵读困难组和非诵读困难组的命名速度,但对诵读困难读者的影响更大。此外,诵读困难读者在这些领域的困难主要出现在一个明确包括命名产生阶段的指标中。本研究阐明了非诵读困难读者RAN表现的基础过程,并指出了诵读困难读者的困难领域。我们参照命名速度缺陷的语音和非语音假说讨论了这些发现。