Literature DB >> 22754142

What lexical decision and naming tell us about reading.

Leonard Katz1, Larry Brancazio, Julia Irwin, Stephen Katz, James Magnuson, D H Whalen.   

Abstract

The lexical decision (LD) and naming (NAM) tasks are ubiquitous paradigms that employ printed word identification. They are major tools for investigating how factors like morphology, semantic information, lexical neighborhood and others affect identification. Although use of the tasks is widespread, there has been little research into how performance in LD or NAM relates to reading ability, a deficiency that limits the translation of research with these tasks to the understanding of individual differences in reading. The present research was designed to provide a link from LD and NAM to the specific variables that characterize reading ability (e.g., decoding, sight word recognition, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension) as well as to important reading-related abilities (phonological awareness and rapid naming). We studied 99 adults with a wide range of reading abilities. LD and NAM strongly predicted individual differences in word identification, less strongly predicted vocabulary size and did not predict comprehension. Fluency was predicted but with differences that depended on the way fluency was defined. Finally, although the tasks did not predict individual differences in rapid naming or phonological awareness, the failures nevertheless assisted in understanding the cognitive mechanisms behind these reading-related abilities. The results demonstrate that LD and NAM are important tools for the study of individual differences in reading.

Entities:  

Year:  2011        PMID: 22754142      PMCID: PMC3383646          DOI: 10.1007/s11145-011-9316-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Read Writ        ISSN: 0922-4777


  21 in total

1.  An event-related brain potential analysis of visual word priming effects.

Authors:  C M Brown; P Hagoort; D J Chwilla
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 2.381

2.  fMRI evidence for dual routes to the mental lexicon in visual word recognition.

Authors:  Christian J Fiebach; Angela D Friederici; Karsten Müller; D Yves von Cramon
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2002-01-01       Impact factor: 3.225

3.  Computing the meanings of words in reading: cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes.

Authors:  Michael W Harm; Mark S Seidenberg
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 8.934

4.  Training phonological awareness: A study with inner-city kindergarten children.

Authors:  S Brady; A Fowler; B Stone; N Winbury
Journal:  Ann Dyslexia       Date:  1994-01

5.  Decomposing the relation between Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) and reading ability.

Authors:  Karen M Arnell; Marc F Joanisse; Raymond M Klein; Michael A Busseri; Rosemary Tannock
Journal:  Can J Exp Psychol       Date:  2009-09

6.  Simple reaction time for good and poor readers in grades two and six.

Authors:  L Katz; D A Wicklund
Journal:  Percept Mot Skills       Date:  1971-02

7.  Children's and adults' use of spelling-sound information in three reading tasks.

Authors:  G S Waters; M S Seidenberg; M Bruck
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1984-05

8.  Repetitive naming and the detection of word retrieval deficits in the beginning reader.

Authors:  R B Katz; D Shankweiler
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  1985-12       Impact factor: 4.027

9.  Are CORNER and BROTHER Morphologically Complex? Not in the Long Term.

Authors:  Jay G Rueckl; Karen Aicher
Journal:  Lang Cogn Process       Date:  2008-11-13

10.  Same or different? Insights into the etiology of phonological awareness and rapid naming.

Authors:  Adam J Naples; Joseph T Chang; Leonard Katz; Elena L Grigorenko
Journal:  Biol Psychol       Date:  2008-10-21       Impact factor: 3.251

View more
  11 in total

1.  Individual differences in visual word recognition: insights from the English Lexicon Project.

Authors:  Melvin J Yap; David A Balota; Daragh E Sibley; Roger Ratcliff
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2011-07-04       Impact factor: 3.332

2.  Lexical decision as an endophenotype for reading comprehension: an exploration of an association.

Authors:  Adam Naples; Len Katz; Elena L Grigorenko
Journal:  Dev Psychopathol       Date:  2012-11

Review 3.  Task dependent lexicality effects support interactive models of reading: a meta-analytic neuroimaging review.

Authors:  Chris McNorgan; Sarah Chabal; Daniel O'Young; Sladjana Lukic; James R Booth
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2014-12-15       Impact factor: 3.139

4.  Individual differences in subphonemic sensitivity and phonological skills.

Authors:  Monica Y C Li; David Braze; Anuenue Kukona; Clinton L Johns; Whitney Tabor; Julie A Van Dyke; W Einar Mencl; Donald P Shankweiler; Kenneth R Pugh; James S Magnuson
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2019-05-22       Impact factor: 3.059

5.  Bayesian adaptive assessment of the reading function for vision: The qReading method.

Authors:  Fang Hou; Yukai Zhao; Luis Andres Lesmes; Peter Bex; Deyue Yu; Zhong-Lin Lu
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2018-09-04       Impact factor: 2.240

6.  Adults with poor reading skills: How lexical knowledge interacts with scores on standardized reading comprehension tests.

Authors:  Gail McKoon; Roger Ratcliff
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2015-11-09

7.  Lexical decisions in adults with low and high susceptibility to pattern-related visual stress: a preliminary investigation.

Authors:  James M Gilchrist; Peter M Allen
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-04-14

8.  Individual Differences in the Neural and Cognitive Mechanisms of Single Word Reading.

Authors:  Simon Fischer-Baum; Jeong Hwan Kook; Yoseph Lee; Aurora Ramos-Nuñez; Marina Vannucci
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2018-07-05       Impact factor: 3.169

9.  Rapid online assessment of reading ability.

Authors:  Jason D Yeatman; Kenny An Tang; Patrick M Donnelly; Maya Yablonski; Mahalakshmi Ramamurthy; Iliana I Karipidis; Sendy Caffarra; Megumi E Takada; Klint Kanopka; Michal Ben-Shachar; Benjamin W Domingue
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-03-18       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Can Machines Find the Bilingual Advantage? Machine Learning Algorithms Find No Evidence to Differentiate Between Lifelong Bilingual and Monolingual Cognitive Profiles.

Authors:  Samuel Kyle Jones; Jodie Davies-Thompson; Jeremy Tree
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2021-03-22       Impact factor: 3.169

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.