Developmental and acquired dyslexia: A comparison

Baddeley, Alan; Ellis, Nick C.; Miles, T. R.; Lewis, Vivien

doi:10.1016/0010-0277(82)90025-7

Cited by 115 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A common viewpoint is that there are developmental analogues to the acquired forms of dyslexia (see, e.g., Baddeley, Ellis, Miles, & Lewis, 1982;Harris & Coltheart, 1986;Marshall, 1984). Perhaps the clearest evidence comes from Castles and Coltheart (1993), who compared 53 dyslexic children with 56 age-matched normal readers in their ability to pronounce exception words and nonwords.…”

Section: Additional Empirical Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains.

Plaut

McClelland²,

Seidenberg³

et al. 1996

Psychological Review

2,368

133

2,728

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We develop a connectionist approach to processing in quasi-regular domains, as exemplified by English word reading. A consideration of the shortcomings of a previous implementation (Seidenberg & McClelland, 1989, Psych. Rev.) in reading nonwords leads to the development of orthographic and phonological representations that capture better the relevant structure among the written and spoken forms of words. In a number of simulation experiments, networks using the new representations learn to read both regular and exception words, including low-frequency exception words, and yet are still able to read pronounceable nonwords as well as skilled readers. A mathematical analysis of the effects of word frequency and spelling-sound consistency in a related but simpler system serves to clarify the close relationship of these factors in influencing naming latencies. These insights are verified in subsequent simulations, including an attractor network that reproduces the naming latency data directly in its time to settle on a response. Further analyses of the network's ability to reproduce data on impaired reading in surface dyslexia support a view of the reading system that incorporates a graded division-of-labor between semantic and phonological processes. Such a view is consistent with the more general Seidenberg and McClelland framework and has some similarities with-but also important differences from-the standard dual-route account.Many aspects of language can be characterized as quasiregular-the relationship between inputs and outputs is systematic but admits many exceptions. One such task is the mapping between the written and spoken forms of English words. Most words are regular (e.g., GAVE, MINT) in that their pronunciations adhere to standard spelling-sound correspondences. There are, however, many irregular or exception words (e.g., HAVE, PINT) whose pronunciations violate the standard correspondences. To make matters worse, some spelling patterns have a range of pronunciations with none clearly predominating (e.g., OWN in DOWN, TOWN, BROWN, This research was supported financially by the National Institute of Mental Health (Grants MH47566 and MH00385), the National Institute on Aging (Grant Ag10109), the National Science Foundation (Grant ASC-9109215), and the McDonnell-Pew Program in Cognitive Neuroscience (Grant T89-01245-016).We thank Marlene Behrmann, Derek Besner, Max Coltheart, Joe Devlin, Geoff Hinton, and Eamon Strain for helpful discussions and comments. We also acknowledge Derek Besner, Max Coltheart, and Michael McCloskey for directing attention to many of the issues addressed in this paper.Correspondence concerning this paper should be sent to Dr. David C. Plaut, Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890, plaut@cmu.edu. CROWN vs. KNOWN, SHOWN, GROWN, THROWN, or OUGH in COUGH, ROUGH, BOUGH, THOUGH, THROUGH). Nonetheless, in the face of this complexity, skilled readers pronounce written words quickly and accurately, and can also use their knowledge...

show abstract

Section: Additional Empirical Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains.

Plaut

McClelland²,

Seidenberg³

et al. 1996

Psychological Review

2,368

133

2,728

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other studies, however, have suggested that poor readers are impaired in using a phonological approach to reading. Thus Snowling (1981) and Baddeley, Ellis, Miles, and Lewis (1982) found poor readers to be less accurate at pronouncing nonwords than were reading-age controls. Still other studies have failed to find impaired nonword naming in poor readers (e.g., Beech & Harding, 1984;Johnston, Rugg, & Scott, 1987a); Treiman & Hirsh-Pasek, 1985).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

The use of phonological information by good and poor readers in memory and reading tasks

Holligan

Johnston

1988

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There has been a recent debate about the utilization of phonological information by poor readers in both working memory and reading tasks. The purpose of the first experiment in this study was to examine whether the absence of phonological similarity effects in working memory reported in previous studies was due to inappropriate levels of task difficulty. Poor readers and their reading age controls were found to show a normal effect when the memory task was at an appropriate level of difficulty, but no effect when a large number of items had to be recalled. However, in a recognition memory task, the poor readers chose orthographically similar pairs, whereas the reading-age and chronological age controls chose phonologically similar pairs. The purpose of a final experiment was to determine whether or not the good and poor readers could be differentiated in terms of their reading strategies; both groups showed regularity effects in a naming task and pseudohomophone effects in a lexical decision task. However, although poor readers could read three-letter nonwords as well as their controls, they were significantly impaired in reading more complex one-syllable nonwords. It was concluded that poor readers may have a phonological dysfunction in some aspects of reading that is unrelated to whether or not they show phonological similarity effects in working memory. Impaired segmentation skills may underly their difficulties in both reading and nonreading tasks.Many studies have been carried out in order to examine the idea that poor readers are deficient in utilizing phonological information in both memory and reading tasks. In a review of the literature, Vellutino (1979) has concluded that poor readers are deficient in their use of verbal or phonological information in both short-and long-term memory tasks. Similarly, Frith (1985) has concluded that poor readers suffer primarily from a phonological dysfunction in reading.In the memory literature, a number of studies have shown that poor readers use phonological information less effectively than good readers. Shankweiler, Liberman, Mark, Fowler, and Fischer (1979) demonstrated that 8-year-old poor readers, in a serial order recall task involving memory of letter strings, showed smaller effects of phonological similarity than did chronological age controls. They concluded that poor readers have poorer access to a phonetic code or access to a degraded phonetic representation. A number of other studies have since confirmed these findings. Mann, Liberman, and Shankweiler (1980) showed similar effects when words and sentences were presented for recall, and Siegel and Linder (1984) replicated the Shankweiler et al. findings on 7-to 8-yearold poor readers.We should like to thank the pupils and staff at schools in Dundee and Edinburgh for their assistance. In particular, we should like to thank Johnston (1982), however, found normal effects of phonological similarity in 9-, 12-, and l4-year-old poor readers, and cautiously concluded that such reduced effects must be restricted...

show abstract

“…Por exemplo, no estudo de BADDELEY et al (1982), os disléxicos apresentaram na leitura de palavras reais uma média de erros de 6,3% contra 41,6% de erros na leitura de palavras inventadas; portanto, uma relação maior do que 1 para 6. No presente estudo, os sujeitos do grupo 1 apresentaram na leitura de palavras reais de alta freqüência (aquelas que supostamente teriam sido lidas pela rota lexical) uma média de erros de 13,61% contra 46,11% na leitura de palavras inventadas, numa relação equivalente a 1 para 3.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Dislexias adquiridas como referência para a análise das dificuldades de aprendizagem da leitura

Guimarães

2004

Educ. rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMOVários autores têm tentado explicar as dificuldades de aprendizagem da leitura comparando o padrão de leitura dos sujeitos que apresentam essa dificuldade com o dos portadores de dislexia adquirida dos tipos fonológica (dificuldade na coordenação letra-som) e de superfície (distúrbio no processo de reconhecimento da forma da palavra). O presente estudo teve por objetivo identificar se o procedimento de leitura preferencialmente utilizado pelas crianças com dificuldades de aprendizagem dessa habilidade é diferente do procedimento utilizado pelos leitores normais. Foram formados três grupos de sujeitos: 20 crianças de 3ª e 4ª séries com dificuldades de aprendizagem da leitura (grupo 1); 20 crianças da 1ª série com o mesmo nível de leitura dos sujeitos do grupo 1 (grupo 2); e 20 crianças de 3ª e 4ª séries com a mesma idade cronológica dos sujeitos do grupo 1 (grupo 3). A pesquisa consistiu em uma tarefa de leitura e duas provas de controle. Os escores obtidos revelaram que todos os sujeitos apresentaram melhor desempenho na leitura das palavras de alta freqüência e pior desempenho na leitura de palavras inventadas. Esses resultados indicam uso preferencial de um procedimento lexical (não-analítico) por todos os sujeitos. Identificou-se também que o grupo 1 apresentou menor facilidade em utilizar a mediação fonológica. Contudo, os resultados não mostram diferenças entre os procedimentos de leitura utilizados pelos sujeitos com e sem dificuldades de aprendizagem. Portanto, acredita-se que a comparação entre dislexias adquiridas e dificuldades de aprendizagem da lei-

show abstract

Developmental and acquired dyslexia: A comparison

Cited by 115 publications

References 14 publications

Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains.

Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains.

The use of phonological information by good and poor readers in memory and reading tasks

Dislexias adquiridas como referência para a análise das dificuldades de aprendizagem da leitura

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About