2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2005.07.014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The ABCs of computerized naming: Equivalency, reliability, and predictive validity of a computerized rapid automatized naming (RAN) task

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
13
0
2

Year Published

2006
2006
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
1
13
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Participants with longer rapid automatized naming times tend to have lower reading comprehension scores, slower reading rates and their initial landing position when fixating tends to be further to the left (among others: Howe et al, 2006 ; Arnell et al, 2009 ; Kuperman and Van Dyke, 2011 ). Moreover, rapid automatized naming tasks seem to recruit a network of neural structures also involved in more complex reading tasks (Misra et al, 2004 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Participants with longer rapid automatized naming times tend to have lower reading comprehension scores, slower reading rates and their initial landing position when fixating tends to be further to the left (among others: Howe et al, 2006 ; Arnell et al, 2009 ; Kuperman and Van Dyke, 2011 ). Moreover, rapid automatized naming tasks seem to recruit a network of neural structures also involved in more complex reading tasks (Misra et al, 2004 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Leitores proficientes são capazes de ler palavras a uma velocidade bastante rápida, chegando a 300 palavras por minuto, ou cinco palavras por segundo 13 . O teste RAN é um teste de fácil aplicação e de grande valia, pois funciona como uma ferramenta para diagnosticar problemas potenciais da leitura, permitindo a detecção precoce e a devida intervenção 14 .…”
unclassified
“…The Peg board task validated against the Tower of Hanoi test, showed moderate correlation, i.e., total time completion was 0.565 and total number of errors 0.752.These results indicated that computerized cognition testing methods are reliable and despite the differences in the method of stimulus presentation (physical, e.g. peg, versus virtual) [20] and mode of administration (computer versus in person) have good concurrent validity and hence could be used to model the conventional Tower of Hanoi test [11]. …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%