No abstract

Rapid automatized naming (RAN; Denckla & Rudel, 1976) tasks are consistent predictors of fluency that also discriminate between dyslexic and nondyslexic reading groups. The component processes of RAN that are responsible for its relationship with reading ability remain underspecified, however. We report a study on dyslexic and nondyslexic adult groups that experimentally manipulated RAN formats to elucidate how different components of RAN differentially influence dyslexic and nondyslexic performance. The dyslexic group showed a pervasive deficit in rapid access of individually presented items. Additionally, they showed a significant impairment when multiple items were presented, whereas nondyslexic readers showed marginal facilitation for this format. We discuss the implications of these findings with respect to reading-group differences in reading fluency.

The methods literature on research with children recognises the challenges of negotiating informed consent with this group. Special ‘child‐friendly’ techniques are advocated to overcome these challenges. We argue that, upon closer inspection, research with children foregrounds more fundamental problems with informed consent that are not easily resolved. Drawing from three ethical texts commonly consulted in our own research fields, we highlight problems of information, understanding, authority, capacity and voluntarity. We conclude that informed consent is more problematic than is generally admitted, and that researchers would benefit from more openly acknowledging its limitations.

The ability to coordinate serial processing of multiple items is crucial for fluent reading but is known to be impaired in dyslexia. To investigate this impairment, we manipulated the orthographic and phonological similarity of adjacent letters online as dyslexic and nondyslexic readers named letters in a serial naming (RAN) task. Eye movements and voice onsets were recorded. Letter arrays contained target item pairs in which the second letter was orthographically or phonologically similar to the first letter when viewed either parafoveally (Experiment 1a) or foveally (Experiment 1b). Relative to normal readers, dyslexic readers were more affected by orthographic confusability in Experiment 1a and phonological confusability in Experiment 1b. Normal readers were slower to process orthographically similar letters in Experiment 1b. Findings indicate that the phonological and orthographic processing problems of dyslexic readers manifest differently during parafoveal and foveal processing, with each contributing to slower RAN performance and impaired reading fluency.

Developmental dyslexia is often characterized by a visual deficit, but the nature of this impairment and how it relates to reading ability is disputed (Brain 2003; 126: 841-865). In order to investigate this issue, we compared groups of adults with and without dyslexia on the Ternus, visual-search and symbols tasks. Dyslexic readers yielded more errors on the visual-search and symbols tasks compared with non-dyslexic readers. A positive correlation between visual-search and symbols task performance suggests a common mechanism shared by these tasks. Performance on the visual-search and symbols tasks also correlated with non-word reading and rapid automatized naming measures, and visual search contributed independent variance to non-word reading. The Ternus task did not discriminate reading groups nor contributed significant variance to reading measures. We consider how visual-attention processes might underlie specific component reading measures.

No abstract

Reading fluency is often indexed by performance on rapid automatized naming (RAN) tasks, which are known to reflect speed of access to lexical codes. We used eye tracking to investigate visual influences on naming fluency. Specifically, we examined how visual crowding affects fluency in a RAN-letters task on an item-by-item basis, by systematically manipulating the interletter spacing of items, such that upcoming letters in the array were viewed in the fovea, parafovea, or periphery relative to a given fixated letter. All lexical information was kept constant. Nondyslexic readers' gaze durations were longer in foveal than in parafoveal and peripheral trials, indicating that visual crowding slows processing even for fluent readers. Dyslexics' gaze durations were longer in foveal and parafoveal trials than in peripheral trials. Our results suggest that for dyslexic readers, influences of crowding on naming speed extend to a broader visual span (to parafoveal vision) than that for nondyslexic readers, but do not extend as far as peripheral vision. The findings extend previous research by elucidating the different visual spans within which crowding operates for dyslexic and nondyslexic readers in an online fluency task.

The ability to learn visual-phonological associations is a unique predictor of word reading, and individuals with developmental dyslexia show impaired ability in learning these associations. In this study, we compared developmentally dyslexic and nondyslexic adults on their ability to form cross-modal associations (or "bindings") based on a single exposure to pairs of visual and phonological features. Reading groups were therefore compared on the very early stages of associative learning. We used a working memory framework-including experimental designs used to investigate cross-modal binding. Two change-detection experiments showed a group discrepancy in binding that was dependent on spatial location encoding: Whereas group performance was similar when location was an inconsistent cue (Experiment 1), nondyslexic readers showed higher accuracy in binding than dyslexics when location was a consistent cue (Experiment 2). A cued-recall task confirmed that location information discriminates binding ability between reading groups in a more explicit memory recall task (Experiment 3). Our results show that recall for ephemeral cross-modal bindings is supported by location information in nondyslexics, but this information cannot be used to similar effect in dyslexic readers. Our findings support previous demonstrations of cross-modal association difficulty in dyslexia and show that a group discrepancy exists even in a single, initial presentation of visual-phonological pairs. Effective use of location information as a retrieval cue is one mechanism that discriminates reading groups, which may contribute to the longer term cross-modal association problems characteristic of dyslexia.