Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) is strongly related to literacy gains in developing readers, reading disabilities and reading ability in children and adults. Because successful RAN performance depends on the close coordination of a number of abilities, it is unclear what specific skills drive this RAN-reading relationship. The current study used concurrent recordings of young adult participants’ vocalizations and eye movements during the RAN task to assess how individual variation in RAN performance depends on the coordination of visual and vocal processes. Results showed that fast RAN times are facilitated by having the eyes one or more items ahead of the current vocalization, as long as the eyes do not get so far ahead of the voice as to require a regressive eye movement to an earlier item. These data suggest that optimizing RAN performance is a problem of scheduling eye movements and vocalization given memory constraints and the efficiency of encoding and articulatory control. Both RAN completion time (conventionally used to indicate RAN performance) and eye-voice relations predicted some aspects of participants’ eye movements on a separate sentence reading task. However, eye-voice relations predicted additional features of first-pass reading that were not predicted by RAN completion time. This shows that measurement of eye-voice patterns can identify important aspects of individual variation in reading that are not identified by the standard measure of RAN performance. We argue that RAN performance predicts reading ability because both tasks entail challenges of scheduling cognitive and linguistic processes that operate simultaneously on multiple linguistic inputs.

BackgroundIndividuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and their parents demonstrate impaired performance in rapid automatized naming (RAN), a task that recruits a variety of linguistic and executive processes. Though the basic processes that contribute to RAN differences remain unclear, eye-voice relationships, as measured through eye tracking, can provide insight into cognitive and perceptual processes contributing to RAN performance. For example, in RAN, eye-voice span (EVS), the distance ahead the eyes are when articulation of a target item's label begins, is an indirect measure of automaticity of the processes underlying RAN. The primary objective of this study was to investigate automaticity in naming processes, as indexed by EVS during RAN. The secondary objective was to characterize RAN difficulties in individuals with ASD and their siblings.MethodsParticipants (aged 15–33 years) included 21 individuals with ASD, 23 siblings of individuals with ASD, and 24 control subjects, group-matched on chronological age. Naming time, frequency of errors, and EVS were measured during a RAN task and compared across groups.ResultsA stepwise pattern of RAN performance was observed, with individuals with ASD demonstrating the slowest naming across all RAN conditions, controls demonstrating the fastest naming, and siblings demonstrating intermediate performance. Individuals with ASD exhibited smaller EVSs than controls on all RAN conditions, and siblings exhibited smaller EVSs during number naming (the most highly automatized type of naming). EVSs were correlated with naming times in controls only, and only in the more automatized conditions.ConclusionsThese results suggest that reduced automaticity in the component processes of RAN may underpin differences in individuals with ASD and their siblings. These findings also provide further support that RAN abilities are impacted by genetic liability to ASD. This study has important implications for understanding the underlying skills contributing to language-related deficits in ASD.

This study assessed the effects of semantic context in the form of self-produced and other-produced words on subsequent language production. Pairs of participants performed a joint picture naming task, taking turns while naming a continuous series of pictures. In the single-speaker version of this paradigm, naming latencies have been found to increase for successive presentations of exemplars from the same category, a phenomenon known as Cumulative Semantic Interference (CSI). As expected, the joint-naming task showed a within-speaker CSI effect, such that naming latencies increased as a function of the number of category exemplars named previously by the participant (self-produced items). Crucially, we also observed an across-speaker CSI effect, such that naming latencies slowed as a function of the number of category members named by the participant's task partner (other-produced items). The magnitude of the across-speaker CSI effect did not vary as a function of whether or not the listening participant could see the pictures their partner was naming. The observation of across-speaker CSI suggests that the effect originates at the conceptual level of the language system, as proposed by Belke's (2013) Conceptual Accumulation account. Whereas self-produced and other-produced words both resulted in a CSI effect on naming latencies, post-experiment free recall rates were higher for self-produced than other-produced items. Together, these results suggest that both speaking and listening result in implicit learning at the conceptual level of the language system but that these effects are independent of explicit learning as indicated by item recall.

Dialogue requires speakers to coordinate. According to the model of dialogue as joint action, interlocutors achieve this coordination by corepresenting their own and each other's task share in a functionally equivalent manner. In two experiments, we investigated this corepresentation account using an interactive joint naming task in which pairs of participants took turns naming sets of objects on a shared display. Speaker A named the first, or the first and third object, and Speaker B named the second object. In control conditions, Speaker A named one, two, or all three objects and Speaker B remained silent. We recorded the timing of the speakers' utterances and Speaker A's eye movements. Interturn pause durations indicated that the speakers effectively coordinated their utterances in time. Speaker A's speech onset latencies depended on the number of objects they named, but were unaffected by Speaker B's naming task. This suggests speakers were not fully incorporating their partner's task into their own speech planning. Moreover, Speaker A's eye movements indicated that they were much less likely to attend to objects their partner named than to objects they named themselves. When speakers did inspect their partner's objects, viewing times were too short to suggest that speakers were retrieving these object names as if they were planning to name the objects themselves. These results indicate that speakers prioritized planning their own responses over attending to their interlocutor's task and suggest that effective coordination can be achieved without full corepresentation of the partner's task. (PsycINFO Database Record