2018
DOI: 10.1080/10888438.2018.1485680
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Hearing Matters More Than Seeing: A Cross-Modality Study of Statistical Learning and Reading Ability

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

10
146
4
10

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 70 publications
(170 citation statements)
references
References 54 publications
10
146
4
10
Order By: Relevance
“…The current study expands these relations by showing that performance on an implicit A‐AGL using nonlinguistic stimuli is also significantly correlated to reading aloud single Hebrew words, as well as to decoding and fluency. The results of the current study provide further affirmation to the study by Qi et al () in which accuracy in auditory SL was correlated with sentence reading fluency, whereas RT slope of auditory SL was correlated with non‐word reading.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The current study expands these relations by showing that performance on an implicit A‐AGL using nonlinguistic stimuli is also significantly correlated to reading aloud single Hebrew words, as well as to decoding and fluency. The results of the current study provide further affirmation to the study by Qi et al () in which accuracy in auditory SL was correlated with sentence reading fluency, whereas RT slope of auditory SL was correlated with non‐word reading.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…For example, iconic memory is short lived (scale of milliseconds), whereas echoic memory lasts significantly longer (scale of seconds; Sams, Hari, Rif, & Knuutila, 1993). A recent study that examined visual and auditory SL and their association with reading ability among TD children and adults found that the ability to extract regularities from auditory stimuli played a relatively more influential role in reading than SL of visual stimuli (Qi, Sanchez Araujo, Georgan, Gabrieli, & Arciuli, 2018). Therefore, any conclusion regarding implicit learning processes among adults with DD drawn solely on the basis of their performance on the visual task would be incomplete.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A full understanding of individual differences in SL and their role in language requires then an explicit theory regarding the exact computations that are tapped by each SL task, and the available statistical information that needs to be extracted from the sensory input in order to achieve successful attainment of different linguistic skills in different languages. This perspective is compatible with individual‐differences studies already showing that some linguistic outcomes are only predicted by some SL sub‐component(s), but not others (Misyak & Christiansen, ; Qi et al, ; van der Kleij et al, ). Future studies should further refine the predictions regarding when and why one should expect positive relations between a SL measure and a linguistic outcome.…”
Section: Linking Sl and Language: Moving Beyond The Proof Of Concept supporting
confidence: 88%
“…Therefore, from an individualdifferences perspective, it is critical to understand what are the exact components tapped by each task, and to what extent different tasks do or do not overlap. Then, when predicting a given linguistic skill, each study should carefully consider the specific components of SL that are relevant to the investigated linguistic ability and come up with predictions regarding which SL task(s) should be associated with this linguistic skill based on the overlap in computations (see Misyak & Christiansen, 2012;Misyak et al, 2010;Qi, Sanchez Araujo, Georgan, Gabrieli, & Arciuli, 2019 for preliminary directions and discussions). Thus, for example, auditory sentence processing may be related more to an auditory SL task than to a visual one, while reading may rely on both visual and auditory SL (see Hung, Frost, & Pugh, 2018;Qi et al, 2019).…”
Section: What Is the Structure Of Sl As A Theoretical Construct?mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation