2015
DOI: 10.1007/s11881-015-0100-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effects of orthographic transparency and familiarity on reading Hebrew words in adults with and without dyslexia

Abstract: The current study examined the effects of transparency and familiarity on word recognition in adult Hebrew dyslexic readers with a phonological processing deficit as compared to typical readers. We measured oral reading response time and accuracy of single nouns in several conditions: diacritics that provide transparent but less familiar information and vowel letters that increase orthographic transparency without compromise familiarity. In line with former studies with adult dyslexics, Hebrew-speaking adults … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
10
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 90 publications
1
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This indicated that their visual attention for Malay real words was localised in the BA17 area ( 13 ). However, to read or detect real words, dyslexic children applied their spatial attention using BA37, which is an area of familiar word recognition ( 14 ). We assume that the activation area was diverted in dyslexic children during the Malay real words stimuli due to different brain connectivity.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This indicated that their visual attention for Malay real words was localised in the BA17 area ( 13 ). However, to read or detect real words, dyslexic children applied their spatial attention using BA37, which is an area of familiar word recognition ( 14 ). We assume that the activation area was diverted in dyslexic children during the Malay real words stimuli due to different brain connectivity.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…sLORETA source analysis revealed that non-dyslexic children activated BA37 which is fusiform gyrus in the left temporal lobe and dyslexic children activated BA11 which is superior frontal gyrus in the right frontal lobe during vMMN source localisation. BA37 is a spatial attention area and also an area of familiar word recognition ( 14 ) and BA11 is the decision-making area ( 15 ). We adopt the functions of these areas and assume that vMMN reflected through familiar word recognition areas for non-dyslexic children and decision-making areas for dyslexic children.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Reaction times (RT) were collected starting from the stimulus presentation to the onset of vocalization. The 96 words from the current experiment were presented together with 152 words from another experiment (see Weiss et al, 2015a , b ) which were similar in length and frequency and also appeared in both the pointed and un-pointed versions. Hence, the total number of trials for both experiments together was 248.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…In skilled adult readers diacritics have mixed effects, showing either facilitation ( Navon and Shimron, 1981 ; Shimron and Navon, 1982 ; Koriat, 1984 , 1985 ) or no effect ( Bentin and Frost, 1987 ; Shimron and Sivan, 1994 ; Schiff and Ravid, 2004 ; Harel-Koren, 2007 ) on speed and accuracy of word recognition. However, both behavioral ( Weiss et al, 2015a ) and brain imaging ( Weiss et al, 2015b ) studies, of word reading in Hebrew show that even skilled adult readers who do not benefit from diacritics in terms of accuracy or RT, resort to a more piecemeal segmentation approach of decoding small units when reading pointed words.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In these tests participants read a list of pointed words or pseudowords as quickly and as accurately as possible within 1 min and the number of correct items was counted. Participants were excluded if they scored less than one standard deviation below the average of our local norms (Weiss et al, 2015) in both tests. To test the effect of individual differences on consolidation, additional baseline parameters were measured.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%