Literature DB >> 35143250

Letter processing in upright bigrams predicts reading fluency variations in children.

Aakash Agrawal1, Sonali Nag2, K V S Hari3, S P Arun4.   

Abstract

Fluent reading is an important milestone in education, but we lack a clear understanding of why children vary so widely in attaining it. Language-related factors such as rapid automatized naming (RAN) and phonological awareness have been identified as important factors that explain reading fluency. However, whether any aspects of visual orthographic processing also explain reading fluency beyond phonology is unclear. To investigate these issues, we tested primary school children (n = 68) on four tasks: two reading fluency tasks (word reading and passage reading), a RAN task to measure naming speed, and a visual search task using letters and bigrams. Bigram processing in visual search was accurately explained by single-letter discrimination, and error patterns were unrelated to fluency or bigram frequency, ruling out the contribution of specialized bigram detectors. As expected, the RAN score was strongly correlated with reading fluency. Importantly, there was a highly specific association between reading fluency and upright bigram processing in visual search. This association was specific to upright but not inverted bigrams and to bigrams with normal but not large letter spacing. It was explained by increased letter discrimination across bigrams and reduced interactions between letters within bigrams. Thus, fluent reading is accompanied by specialized changes in letter processing within bigrams. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35143250      PMCID: PMC7613594          DOI: 10.1037/xge0001175

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen        ISSN: 0022-1015


  50 in total

1.  Distractor familiarity leads to more efficient visual search for complex stimuli.

Authors:  Ryan E B Mruczek; David L Sheinberg
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2005-08

2.  Adding words to the brain's visual dictionary: novel word learning selectively sharpens orthographic representations in the VWFA.

Authors:  Laurie S Glezer; Judy Kim; Josh Rule; Xiong Jiang; Maximilian Riesenhuber
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2015-03-25       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  The guidance of visual search by shape features and shape configurations.

Authors:  Cody W McCants; Nick Berggren; Martin Eimer
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  Foveal and parafoveal recognition of letters and words by dyslexics and by average readers.

Authors:  H Bouma; C P Legein
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  1977       Impact factor: 3.139

5.  Familiarity and pop-out in visual search.

Authors:  Q Wang; P Cavanagh; M Green
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1994-11

6.  Developmental dyslexia: the visual attention span deficit hypothesis.

Authors:  Marie-Line Bosse; Marie Josèphe Tainturier; Sylviane Valdois
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2006-07-21

7.  A different vision of dyslexia: Local precedence on global perception.

Authors:  Sandro Franceschini; Sara Bertoni; Tiziana Gianesini; Simone Gori; Andrea Facoetti
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-12-12       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Does linear separability really matter? Complex visual search is explained by simple search.

Authors:  T Vighneshvel; S P Arun
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2013-09-12       Impact factor: 2.240

9.  Look before you seek: Preview adds a fixed benefit to all searches.

Authors:  Sricharan Sunder; S P Arun
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 2.240

10.  Advantage of detecting visual events in the right hemifield is affected by reading skill.

Authors:  Samy Rima; Grace Kerbyson; Elizabeth Jones; Michael C Schmid
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2020-03-13       Impact factor: 1.886

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.