Measures of Information Processing in Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) and Their Relation to Reading

Does Training in Syllable Recognition Improve Reading Speed? A Computer-Based Trial With Poor Readers From Second and Third Grade

“…This explanation is supported by the stronger connection between RAN and oral reading compared to silent reading (Georgiou, Parrila et al, 2013; van den Boer, van Bergen, & de Jong, 2014). Note, however, that this component cannot be fully explained by simple articulation time, as that has not been associated with either reading or RAN (Clarke, Hulme, & Snowling, 2005; Cutting & Denckla, 2001; Georgiou, Parrila, & Kirby 2006;Georgiou, Parrila et al, 2013;Neuhaus et al, 2001; Obregon, 1994; see, however, the results from the next section).…”

“…Since then, most of the research on RAN has been conducted in the field of dyslexia and reading research. This research has found evidence of linkages between RAN and various aspects of literacy, including reading accuracy (e.g., Compton, 2000;Cornwall, 1992; Cutting & Denckla, 2001;Kirby, Parrila, & Pfeiffer, 2003;Manis, Seidenberg, & Doi, 1999;Schatschneider et al, 2004; Wolf, 1997Wolf, , 1999, reading fluency (e.g., Torppa, Georgiou, Salmi, Eklund & Lyytinen, 2012;, and reading comprehension (Badian, 1993;Neuhaus, Foorman, Francis, & Carlson, 2001;Schatschneider et al, 2004;Sprugevica & Høien 2003, and also spelling (Georgiou, Torppa, Manolitsis, Lyytinen, & Parrila, 2012;Savage, Pillay, & Melidona, 2008;Torppa et al, 2012;. However, the research evidence thus far has shown the strongest support for a connection between RAN and reading fluency (often defined as speed of accurate response to oral reading tasks) or reading speed, as the evidence on the connections with other aspects of reading or spelling have been more or less conflicting (for reviews, see Georgiou & Parrila, 2013;.…”

“…The majority of the results suggest that pause time rather than articulation time explains the shared variance between RAN and reading (e.g., Anderson, Podwall, & Jaffe, 1984;Neuhaus et al, 2001; for review, see Georgiou & Parrila, 2013). As articulation time has been suggested to refer to response automaticity and pause time to the automaticity of phonological access (Neuhaus et al, 2001), the connection between RAN and reading can be explained through the automatization of the phonological retrieval process. However, the relational effect of these RAN components seems to change during development, the unique contribution of articulation time increasing and the effect of pause time decreasing (Georgiou, Papadopoulos, & Kaizer, 2014).…”

“…First, if processing speed was a major factor behind the RAN-reading association, all kinds of RAN tasks would correlate with reading to a similar extent. Because alphanumeric stimuli (letters and numbers) show a stronger link with reading than non-alphanumeric stimuli (reviewed above, e.g., Christopher et al, 2012; Georgiou, Parrila, Kirby, & Stephenson, 2008;Georgiou, Parrila, & Papadopoulos, 2008;Misra et al, 2004;Neuhaus et al, 2001;Poulsen et al, 2015; Savage & Fredrickson, 2006;Stringer et al, 2004; Van den Bos, Zijlstra, & Spelberg, 2002;, alphanumeric RAN tasks seem to reflect a more specific linguistic processing function that cannot be not comprehensively accounted for by general processing speed. Along the same lines, there is research evidence to show that although global processing speed was found to mediate the association between non-alphanumeric naming and word-reading skill, it was not able to explain the connection between alphanumeric naming speed and word-reading skill (Bowey, McGuigan, & Ruschena, 2005).…”

“…This explanation is supported by the stronger connection between RAN and oral reading compared to silent reading (Georgiou, Parrila et al, 2013; van den Boer, van Bergen, & de Jong, 2014). Note, however, that this component cannot be fully explained by simple articulation time, as that has not been associated with either reading or RAN (Clarke, Hulme, & Snowling, 2005; Cutting & Denckla, 2001; Georgiou, Parrila, & Kirby 2006;Georgiou, Parrila et al, 2013;Neuhaus et al, 2001; Obregon, 1994; see, however, the results from the next section).Another view relating to the subcomponents of RAN suggests that the articulation time used to name the items and the pause time between naming them are differentially related to reading. The majority of the results suggest that pause time rather than articulation time explains the shared variance between RAN and reading (e.g., Anderson, Podwall, & Jaffe, 1984;Neuhaus et al, 2001; for review, see Georgiou & Parrila, 2013).…”