Not so fast: A reply to Benedetto et al. (2015)

Ricciardi, Orlando; Nocera, Francesco Di

doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.047

Cited by 10 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two additional limitations of the current study should be acknowledged before we draw general conclusions from the experiment. First, one may argue that the rapid serial visual presentation used for the timed written paradigm is not ecologically valid although, as noted above, research has shown that rapid serial visual presentation does not necessarily disrupt normal reading comprehension processes (Juola et al., ), especially if the rate of presentation is not fast (Ricciardi & Di Nocera, ). This was corroborated by our findings that comprehension was the same or higher in the written modality.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…() found that rapid serial visual presentation does not necessarily disrupt normal reading comprehension processes. More recent evidence (Ricciardi & Di Nocera, ) suggests that rapid serial visual presentation may affect reading comprehension when the rate of presentation is faster than the normal reading rate (∼250 words per minute) but not when the rate of presentation is similar to or slower than the normal rate. The presentation rate of 97.56 words per minute used in the current study was not faster than normal, and a second pilot study ( N = 17) with the same rapid serial visual presentation paradigm as used in the current study yielded similar levels of comprehension as those levels evidenced in previous studies in this line of research (further corroborated by our main data).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Multisite Replication in Second Language Acquisition Research: Attention to Form During Listening and Reading Comprehension

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We conducted a multisite replication study with aspects of preregistration in order to explore the feasibility of such an approach in second language (L2) research. To this end, we addressed open questions in a line of research that has examined whether having learners attend to form while reading or listening to a L2 passage interferes with comprehension. Our results are consistent with findings from the specific paradigm that we replicated in that no effects on comprehension were detected in analyses conducted over all sites. However, further investigation is warranted due to site‐specific effects and methodological limitations. We found all aspects of the multisite registered replication approach to be useful although the registration component itself appeared to be an especially feasible and valuable first step toward increasing the robustness and generalizability of findings in our field. Open Practices This article has been awarded Open Data, Open Materials, and Preregistered Research Design badges. The following information is publicly accessible via the Open Science Framework: registered materials and protocol (https://osf.io/tvuer), registered data entry template (https://osf.io/d5s2t), open data (https://osf.io/vwytd), and open analysis (https://osf.io/nz3su). Learn more about the Open Practices badges from the Center for Open Science: https://osf.io/tvyxz/wiki.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multisite Replication in Second Language Acquisition Research: Attention to Form During Listening and Reading Comprehension

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the word‐by‐word format can be viewed as disruptive to text comprehension, recent studies have found that reading approximately four words per second (i.e., 250 wpm) is a rate comparable to traditional‐normal reading (Proaps & Bliss, ), and increasing the reading rate (but not reducing the reading rate) may result in comprehension breakdown (Ricciardi & Di Nocera, ). Therefore, we judged that a reading rate of 350 ms per word would be appropriate.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Should We Listen or Read? Modality Effects in Implicit and Explicit Knowledge

Kim

Godfroid

2019

The Modern Language Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined the role of modality in learning second language (L2) grammar and forming implicit (unconscious) and explicit (conscious) knowledge. To this end, we isolated the effects of the physical medium of input (i.e., aural or visual) from those of the presentation method (i.e., word‐by‐word or simultaneous). We also explored the role of test modality in L2 performance, by including L2 knowledge tests in both aural and visual modes. Native English speakers engaged in meaning‐focused integrated practice of 3 German syntactic rules. In Experiment 1, learners were given aural or visual word‐by‐word (rapid serial visual presentation; RSVP) input and in Experiment 2, they were given aural or natural written input. We found evidence of learning across all 4 groups, but different types of resultant knowledge. In particular, learners gained explicit knowledge in all input modalities, yet only those trained with natural written input also developed robust implicit knowledge. We conclude that the permanence of visual input may be a critical advantage for beginning learners to develop implicit knowledge of word order rules. Support in the form of written materials can ease the cognitive burden on beginning learners, with better outcomes as a result.

show abstract

“…The aim of the present study was to investigate the limit, in words per minute (wpm) reading rate that could be achieved for RSVP without affecting text comprehension. According to previous studies (Benedetto et al, 2015;Juola et al, 1982;Ricciardi and Di Nocera, 2017), an RSVP rate of 250 wpm does not compromise comprehension abilities, whereas reading rates of 450 wpm or more result in significant comprehensions difficulties. However, 250 wpm is about equivalent to the rate of normal reading, so RSVP provides no improvement.…”

Section: Study: Control-reading Vs Rsvp Rates Of 250 300 350 400 mentioning

confidence: 83%

“…In a previous study (Ricciardi and Di Nocera, 2017), we administered the questionnaire to 30 students (20 females and 10 males with mean age of 22.4 and an s.d. of 2.8) who had not read the passage.…”

Section: Questionnairementioning

confidence: 99%

Rapid serial visual presentation: degradation of inferential reading comprehension as a function of speed

Nocera

Ricciardi

Juola

2018

IJHFE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is increasing interest in the readability of text presented on small digital screens. Designers have come up with novel text presentation methods, such as moving text from right to left, line-stepping, or showing successive text segments such as phrases or single words in a RSVP format. Comparative studies have indicated that RSVP is perhaps the best method of presenting text in a limited space. We tested the method using 209 participants divided into six groups. The groups included traditional reading, and RSVP reading at rates of 250, 300, 350, 400, and 450 wpm. No significant differences were found in comprehension for normal reading and RSVP reading at rates of 250, 300 and 350 wpm. However, higher rates produced significantly lower comprehension scores. It remains to be determined if, with additional practice and improved methods, good levels of reading comprehension at high rates can be achieved with RSVP.

show abstract

Not so fast: A reply to Benedetto et al. (2015)

Cited by 10 publications

References 14 publications

Multisite Replication in Second Language Acquisition Research: Attention to Form During Listening and Reading Comprehension

Multisite Replication in Second Language Acquisition Research: Attention to Form During Listening and Reading Comprehension

Should We Listen or Read? Modality Effects in Implicit and Explicit Knowledge

Rapid serial visual presentation: degradation of inferential reading comprehension as a function of speed

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About