Automaticity, Retrieval Processes, and Reading: A Longitudinal Study in Average and Impaired Readers

Abstract

In this longitudinal investigation, the development of word-retrieval speed and its relationship to reading was studied in 72 average and 11 severely impaired readers in the kindergarten to grade 2 period (5-8 years). Subjects received a battery of 3 reading measures and 4 continuous naming tests with varied stimulus requirements. Results indicated that the relationship of retrieval speed to reading is a function of development and the correspondence between higher- and lower-level processes in the specific retrieval and reading measures. As automaticity in retrieval developed in average readers, naming-speed/reading relationships moved from strong, general predictions to highly differentiated ones. The strongest correlations were between naming speed for graphological stimuli and lower-level reading tasks. Impaired readers performed slower than average readers on all naming measures across all years, particularly on graphological symbols. 3 dyslexic subgroups emerged: the largest was globally impaired across all naming rate and reading tasks; 2 smaller subgroups had early specific, retrieval-rate deficits and dissociated reading deficits.

Structural brain alterations associated with dyslexia predate reading onset

“…Rapid automatized naming is commonly impaired in children and adults with dyslexia and was reported to be one of the main precursors of later reading ability in children (De Jong and Van der Leij, 1999; Kirby et al, 2003; Kobayashi et al, 2005; Wolf, 1986; Wolf et al, 1986). Furthermore, previous research reported significant correlations between gray matter volume in a left occipitotemporal region and digit naming (Kronbichler et al, 2008).…”

“…Finally, the average of GMVIs within each ROI for the whole experimental group ( n =20; 10 FHD+/10 FHD–) was correlated with standardized behavioral measures, which have shown to predict reading ability: phonological processing (e.g. Flax et al, 2008; Gallagher et al, 2000; Pennington and Lefly, 2001; Puolakanaho et al, 2008; Scarborough, 1990; Snowling et al, 2003;) and RAN (De Jong and Van der Leij, 1999; Kirby et al, 2003; Kobayashi et al, 2005; Wolf, 1986; Wolf et al, 1986). Statistical correlation analysis was performed using SPSS software package, version 16.0 (SPSS Inc., 1999).…”

“…; Flax et al, 2008; Gallagher et al, 2000; Pennington and Lefly, 2001; Puolakanaho et al, 2008; Scarborough, 1990; Snowling et al, 2003). Additionally, several studies have found deficits in rapid automatized naming prior to formal reading instruction which predict later reading abilities (De Jong and Van der Leij, 1999; Kirby et al, 2003; Kobayashi et al, 2005; Wolf, 1986; Wolf et al, 1986). Furthermore, research suggests that both phonological processing and rapid automatized naming contribute uniquely and substantially to word reading from grade 1 to grade 6 (Vaessen and Blomert, 2010).…”

Rapid serial naming and reading ability: the role of lexical access

“…However, all theories are consistent in the basic information processing steps required for performing the rapid serial naming task, collectively termed lexical access . Namely, lexical access during rapid naming requires that the participant rapidly transfer presented visual symbols to phonological codes retrieved from long term memory store (Denckla & Rudel, 1974; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987; Wolf, Bally, & Morris, 1986). At issue, however, is just how much variability in reading is attributed to the lexical access process.…”

Spelling well despite developmental language disorder: what makes it possible?

“…The latter view received support from a genetically informed study by Naples, Chang, Katz, and Grigorenko (2009), who found that RAN and PA, assessed in a large sample of unselected families, had only partially overlapping genetic etiology; i.e., each skill involved both shared and unique genes, consistent with the two being non-redundant contributors to reading ability. According to this view, RAN skills and reading are related because both require rapid sequencing of visually presented information and integration of visual recognition with lexical retrieval (e.g., Wolf, Bally, & Morris, 1986, Bowers & Wolf, 1993; Wolf & Bowers, 1999). In line with this view, there is ample evidence that RAN contributes to reading above and beyond PA and pSTM (e.g., Cardoso-Martins & Pennington, 2004; Clarke, Hulme, & Snowling, 2005; Compton, Defries, & Olson, 2001, but cf.…”