Development of phonetic memory in disabled and normal readers

Olson, Richard K.; Davidson, Brian J.; Kliegl, Reinhold; Davies, Susan

doi:10.1016/0022-0965(84)90066-3

Cited by 66 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hanson, Liberman, and Shankweiler (1984) found repeated rhyming strings to be easier for subjects in a study employing short sequences (four items) with the same stimuli repeated on each trial in varying order. In addition, the "rhyme effect" appears to be sensitive to subject characteristics (Hall et al, 1983) and to age effects (Olson et al, 1984). It is evident that additional work is necessary to understand the basis of the traditional rhyme effect in STM.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Errors in short-term memory for good and poor readers

1987

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the role of phonetic factors in the performance of good and poor beginning readers on a verbal short-term memory task. Good and poor readers in the second and third grades repeated four-item lists of consonant-vowel syllables in which each consonant shared zero, one, or two features with other consonants in the string. As in previous studies, the poor readers performed less accurately than the good readers. However, the nature of their errors was the same: Both groups tended to transpose initial consonants as a function of their phonetic similarity and adjacency. These findings suggest that poor readers are able to employ a phonetic coding strategy in short-term memory, as do good readers, but less skillfully.Children who have difficulty learning to read have consistently been found to perform less well than good readers on a wide variety of short-term memory (STM) tasks

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Errors in short-term memory for good and poor readers

1987

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We anticipated that RDs would approach both encoding and choosing from among the response alternatives with more care than the ADDH boys. Reports that RDs are less sensitive than normal children to the acoustic features of rhyming words also suggested that they might engage in less acoustic processing (Mark, Shankweiler, Liberman, & Fowler, 1977;Olson, Davidson, Kliegl, & Davies, 1984). Finally, by questioning subjects about the methods they used to remember the word pairs, we thought we might find evidence that RDs approached the task in a more reflective and effortful manner.…”

Section: Memory Processes In Reading Disabled Children and Possible Amentioning

confidence: 87%

Supraspan verbal memory in attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity normal and reading-disabled boys

Douglas

Benezra

1990

J Abnorm Child Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To assess memory problems associated with attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity (ADDH) and reading disability (RD), nonverbal subspan, span, and supraspan measures was administered to 30 ADDH, 30 normal, and 24 RD boys, ages 7 to 12. Results from the supraspan verbal measures, which included word lists and related and unrelated paired associates, are reported. Across all verbal tasks, deficits became most apparent in ADDH boys on measures requiring organized, deliberate rehearsal strategies, sustained strategic effort, and careful consideration of response alternatives. This pattern suggests impaired self-regulatory or "executive" processes. RDs showed more generalized deficits across the verbal measures, suggesting problems with verbal processing. Recent studies supporting this interpretation are reviewed.

show abstract

“…They also do not show the phonemic confusability effect (i.e., better memory for phonemically dissimilar vs. rhyming words) that is evident at an early stage in normal readers (Byrne & Shea, 1979;Jorm, 1983;Mann, Liberman, & Shankweiler, 1980), although the effect may emerge in poor readers in early adolescence (Johnston, 1982;Siegel & Linder, 1984). Normal readers show a reduction in phonemic confusability with increasing age, probably because of increased precision of phonemic discrimination (Olson, Davidson, Kliegl, & Davies, 1984). Finally, phoneme segmentation and awareness tasks, as well as rhyming skill, have been shown not only to differentiate good and poor readers (Bradley & Bryant, 1983;Mann, 1984;Share, Jorm, Maclean, & Matthews, 1984;Snowling et aI., 1986;Stanovich, 1988a;Wagner & Torgesen, 1987), but also to be good predictors of future reading ability (Adams, 1990;Goswami, 1990;Mann, 1993;Mann & Brady, 1988;Share et aI., 1984;Stanovich et aI., 1984).…”

Section: Evidence For a Phonemic/phonological Deficiti In Dyslexiamentioning

confidence: 94%