Integration of lexical and sublexical processing in the spelling of regular words: A multiple single–case study in Italian dysgraphic patients

Laiacona, Marcella; Capitani, Erminio; Zonca, Giusy; Scola, Ilaria; Saletta, Paola; Luzzatti, Claudio

doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2008.10.011

Cited by 20 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, it appears that spelling real words can be influenced by sublexical information. One important source of evidence in this respect comes from the analysis of the spelling performance of dysgraphic patients with an impaired lexical spelling process (e.g., Hillis and Caramazza, 1991; Miceli et al, 1994, 1999; Hillis et al, 1999; Folk et al, 2002; Rapp et al, 2002; Folk and Jones, 2004; Laiacona et al, 2009). For example, the dysgraphia of case LAT was characterized by the production of phonologically plausible errors (Rapp et al, 2002), pointing to a failure of the lexical process with an increased reliance on sublexical conversion when spelling words.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lexical neighborhood effects in pseudoword spelling

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The general aim of this study is to contribute to a better understanding of the cognitive processes that underpin skilled adult spelling. More specifically, it investigates the influence of lexical neighbors on pseudo-word spelling with the goal of providing a more detailed account of the interaction between lexical and sublexical sources of knowledge in spelling. In prior research examining this topic, adult participants typically heard lists composed of both words and pseudo-words and had to make a lexical decision to each stimulus before writing the pseudo-words. However, these priming paradigms are susceptible to strategic influence and may therefore not give a clear picture of the processes normally engaged in spelling unfamiliar words. In our two Experiments involving 71 French-speaking literate adults, only pseudo-words were presented which participants were simply requested to write to dictation using the first spelling that came to mind. Unbeknownst to participants, pseudo-words varied according to whether they did or did not have a phonological word neighbor. Results revealed that low-probability phoneme/grapheme mappings (e.g., /o/ -> aud in French) were used significantly more often in spelling pseudo-words with a close phonological lexical neighbor with that spelling (e.g., /krepo/ derived from “crapaud,” /krapo/) than in spelling pseudo-words with no close neighbors (e.g., /frøpo/). In addition, the strength of this lexical influence increased with the lexical frequency of the word neighbors as well as with their degree of phonetic overlap with the pseudo-word targets. These results indicate that information from lexical and sublexical processes is integrated in the course of spelling, and a specific theoretical account as to how such integration may occur is introduced.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lexical neighborhood effects in pseudoword spelling

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The performance of patient LHD1 was similar to that observed in patients with mixed or global aphasia, which lead to substantial impairments in word writing tasks due to its effects on both lexical and phonological processing. 20 , 21 However, these patients had less difficulty writing regular words than irregular or pseudowords.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Patients with this condition are able to write some regular words but have difficulty writing irregular words and pseudowords. 20 , 21 Semantic dysgraphia refers to the inability to attribute meaning to written words, and is often observed following left hemisphere lesions. 5 Deep dysgraphia is associated with phonological deficits, which lead to semantic paragraphias, lexicality effects, and difficulty writing pseudoword, as well as unfamiliar and abstract words.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acquired dysgraphia in adults following right or left-hemisphere stroke

Rodrigues

Fontoura

Salles

2014

Dement. neuropsychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the strengths and difficulties in word and pseudoword writing in adults with left- and right-hemisphere strokes, and discuss the profiles of acquired dysgraphia in these individuals.MethodsThe profiles of six adults with acquired dysgraphia in left- or right-hemisphere strokes were investigated by comparing their performance on word and pseudoword writing tasks against that of neurologically healthy adults. A case series analysis was performed on the patients whose impairments on the task were indicative of acquired dysgraphia.ResultsTwo patients were diagnosed with lexical dysgraphia (one with left hemisphere damage, and the other with right hemisphere damage), one with phonological dysgraphia, another patient with peripheral dysgraphia, one patient with mixed dysgraphia and the last with dysgraphia due to damage to the graphemic buffer. The latter patients all had left-hemisphere damage (LHD). The patterns of impairment observed in each patient were discussed based on the dual-route model of writing.ConclusionThe fact that most patients had LHD rather than right-hemisphere damage (RHD) highlights the importance of the former structure for word processing. However, the fact that lexical dysgraphia was also diagnosed in a patient with RHD suggests that these individuals may develop writing impairments due to damage to the lexical route, leading to heavier reliance on phonological processing. Our results are of significant importance to the planning of writing interventions in neuropsychology.

show abstract

“…When the model is drawn this way, it makes sense, visually, to access the orthographic output buffer through the phonological output buffer, and it is visually displeasing to go directly from phonological input buffer to phonological output buffer (cutting through other arrows or sketching a long bypass). And indeed papers that assume writing non-words via the phonological output buffer portray the model similar to Figure 2a, with phonology on the left and orthography on the right (see Caramazza et al, 1987;Ellis & Young, 1996;Hillis & Caramazza, 1987;Kay et al, 1996;Laiacona et al, 2009;Morton, 1980;Patterson & Shewell, 1987). Models that assume a direct phonological input to orthographic output, on the other hand, use a different style of graphic presentationeither they put the reading route on the right, like in Figure 2b (Rapp, 2002), or they do not represent reading and phonological output at all in the model (Rapp, 2005;.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Both possibilities can be found in the literature. Some researchers, such as Ellis and Young (1996), Kay, Lesser, and Coltheart (1996), Laiacona et al (2009), Patterson and Shewell (1987), Shallice and Cooper (2011), and Shallice, Rumiati, and Zadini (2000), assumed that spelling non-words proceeds from the phonological input buffer through the phonological output buffer to the orthographic output buffer 1 (purple Route B in Figure 1). The researchers we cite here do not always call these components 'phonological input buffer' and 'phonological output buffer', but what is clear is that there is a level of phonological input processing, which maps on to a level of phonological output.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Non‐word writing does not require the phonological output buffer: Neuropsychological evidence for a direct phonological‐orthographic route

Friedmann

Yachini

Gvion

et al. 2019

Journal of Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is the route that is used for writing non-words to dictation? Does it have to pass through phonological output? Two possibilities are found in the literature. In one, writing non-words requires access from the phonological input buffer to the phonological output buffer and from there, via phoneme-to-grapheme conversion, to the orthographic output buffer. The second approach maintains that writing non-words can proceed directly from the phonological input buffer to the orthographic output buffer. In this study, we discriminate between these two options using a cognitive neuropsychological approach. Specifically, we present a multiple case study of 24 individuals with a developmental impairment to the phonological output buffer, who nevertheless show unimpaired nonword writing. These data lead to the conclusion that the phonological output buffer is not necessary when writing non-words and that writing non-words to dictation can proceed directly from the phonological input buffer to the orthographic output buffer. We suggest that the cognitive assumption that non-word writing proceeds through the phonological output buffer may have resulted from graphic conventions and the depiction of the lexical processing model: in the common depiction of the model drawing a line through the phonological output buffer is visually simpler than a direct line (which would require lines to cross or long bypass lines).When we describe the processes involved in non-word reading, we typically assume that reading proceeds directly from orthographic input to phonological output (Coltheart,

show abstract

Integration of lexical and sublexical processing in the spelling of regular words: A multiple single–case study in Italian dysgraphic patients

Cited by 20 publications

References 23 publications

Lexical neighborhood effects in pseudoword spelling

Lexical neighborhood effects in pseudoword spelling

Acquired dysgraphia in adults following right or left-hemisphere stroke

Non‐word writing does not require the phonological output buffer: Neuropsychological evidence for a direct phonological‐orthographic route

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About