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

Abstract

Rapid serial naming tasks are frequently used to explain variance in reading skill. However, the construct being measured by rapid naming is yet undetermined. The Phonological Processing theory suggests that rapid naming relates to reading because of similar demands of access to long-term stored phonological representations of visual stimuli. Some researchers have argued that isolated or discrete-trial naming is a more precise measure of lexical access than serial naming, thus it is likely that any shared variance between these two formats can be attributed to similar lexical access demands. The present study examined whether there remained any variance in reading ability that could be uniquely explained by the rapid naming task while controlling for isolated naming. Structural equation modeling was used to examine these relations within the context of the phonological processing model. Results indicated that serial naming uniquely predicted reading, and the relation was stronger with isolated naming controlled for, suggesting that isolated naming functioned as a suppressor variable in the relation of serial naming with reading.

Phonological Processing and Word Reading in Typically Developing and Reading Disabled Children: Severity Matters

“…With the provision of large to very large effect sizes for all reading proficiency levels, while cutting across age levels, our results are in line with the general consensus on the pivotal and enduring importance of RAN and PA to reading (dis)abilities (Kirby et al, 2008;Landerl et al, 2013;Logan, Schatschneider, & Wagner, 2011;Torppa et al, 2012;van den Bos, 2008). However, it should be noted that larger effects of both predictors were established for the most severely impaired readers.…”

Parafoveal processing efficiency in rapid automatized naming: A comparison between Chinese normal and dyslexic children

“…In the RAN task, readers are required to name a series of familiar stimuli, such as letters, digits, colors, or objects. The RAN task is one significant indicator of development status in reading skill (Kirby, Parrila, & Pfeiffer, 2003; Logan, Schatschneider, & Wagner, 2011). Dyslexic children on average perform poorer than normal children in this task (see Norton & Wolf, 2012, for a review).…”

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

“…Other perspectives questioning the phonological view point out that although RAN obviously shares some characteristics with phonological skills , these characteristics are not sufficient to explain the RAN-reading relationship (Jones, Branigan, Hatzidaki, & Obregón, 2010;Powell et al, 2007), and that RAN continues to predict reading after controlling for phonological awareness and/or phonological short-term memory (Bowers et al, 1988;Kirby et al, 2003;Parrila et al, 2004). In addition, results in which RAN predicted reading performance better than discrete naming (i.e., a more classical measure of lexical access) were interpreted to mean that RAN cannot be subsumed under lexical access of phonological stimuli (Logan, Schatschneider, & Wagner, 2011).While each of the perspectives presented above have been both supported and criticized, the question of what underlies the connection between RAN and reading continues to await a comprehensive answer. In studies exploring these viewpoints, while it has been shown that RAN shares a significant part of its predictive variance on reading fluency with processing speed, phonological awareness, phonological short-term memory, letter knowledge, and orthographic processing, RAN survives as a predictor of reading fluency even after controlling for these variables Georgiou, Papadopoulos, Fella, & Parrila, 2012;Georgiou, Tziraki et al, 2013;Poulsen et al, 2015; for a review, see .…”

“…Other perspectives questioning the phonological view point out that although RAN obviously shares some characteristics with phonological skills , these characteristics are not sufficient to explain the RAN-reading relationship (Jones, Branigan, Hatzidaki, & Obregón, 2010;Powell et al, 2007), and that RAN continues to predict reading after controlling for phonological awareness and/or phonological short-term memory (Bowers et al, 1988;Kirby et al, 2003;Parrila et al, 2004). In addition, results in which RAN predicted reading performance better than discrete naming (i.e., a more classical measure of lexical access) were interpreted to mean that RAN cannot be subsumed under lexical access of phonological stimuli (Logan, Schatschneider, & Wagner, 2011).…”