Literature DB >> 10226435

Sex differences in phonological processes: speeded matching and word reading.

R L Majeres1.   

Abstract

Sex differences in phonological processing were investigated in four experiments. Two experiments required college students to decide whether two five-letter strings matched. Same-case (AA) pairs of letter strings could be matched using physical features, whereas mixed-case (Aa) pairs of letter strings required the mediation of a speech-based code (letter name) for the comparison. Women were significantly faster than men when the comparisons required the speech-based codes. In another experiment, college students read lists of words and lists of pseudohomophones to determine whether there was a sex difference in the computation of phonology for unfamiliar words (assembled phonology). In a final experiment, students read lists of words with phonologically inconsistent spelling patterns to determine whether there was a sex difference in accessing pronunciations of familiar words (addressed phonology). Women were more proficient than men under both of these conditions. Results were interpreted in terms of a female advantage in both prelexical and lexical processing, an advantage that may stem from a sex difference in the quality of the phonological representations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10226435     DOI: 10.3758/bf03211409

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  8 in total

Review 1.  Working memory.

Authors:  A Baddeley
Journal:  Science       Date:  1992-01-31       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Sex differences in clerical speed: Perceptual encoding vs. verbal encoding.

Authors:  R L Majeres
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1977-07

Review 3.  Toward a strong phonological theory of visual word recognition: true issues and false trails.

Authors:  R Frost
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 17.737

4.  Predicting reading performance from neuroimaging profiles: the cerebral basis of phonological effects in printed word identification.

Authors:  K R Pugh; B A Shaywitz; S E Shaywitz; D P Shankweiler; L Katz; J M Fletcher; P Skudlarski; R K Fulbright; R T Constable; R A Bronen; C Lacadie; J C Gore
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  Similar attentional, frequency, and associative effects for pseudohomophones and words.

Authors:  G Lukatela; M T Turvey
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1993-02       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  Sex differences in the functional organization of the brain for language.

Authors:  B A Shaywitz; S E Shaywitz; K R Pugh; R T Constable; P Skudlarski; R K Fulbright; R A Bronen; J M Fletcher; D P Shankweiler; L Katz
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1995-02-16       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  Multifactorial assessment of reading disability: identifying the best predictors.

Authors:  K Kerns; S N Decker
Journal:  Percept Mot Skills       Date:  1985-06

8.  Individual differences among children in spelling and reading styles.

Authors:  R Treiman
Journal:  J Exp Child Psychol       Date:  1984-06
  8 in total
  3 in total

1.  The NIH Toolbox Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test: Normative Data.

Authors:  Noelle E Carlozzi; Jennifer L Beaumont; David S Tulsky; Richard C Gershon
Journal:  Arch Clin Neuropsychol       Date:  2015-05-29       Impact factor: 2.813

2.  NIH Toolbox Cognitive Battery (NIHTB-CB): the NIHTB Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test.

Authors:  Noelle E Carlozzi; David S Tulsky; Nancy D Chiaravalloti; Jennifer L Beaumont; Sandra Weintraub; Kevin Conway; Richard C Gershon
Journal:  J Int Neuropsychol Soc       Date:  2014-06-24       Impact factor: 2.892

3.  Sex differences in the Simon task help to interpret sex differences in selective attention.

Authors:  Gijsbert Stoet
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2016-03-08
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.