The Relation between Reading and Spelling in Skilled Adult Readers

Holmes, Virginia M.; Carruthers, Janice

doi:10.1006/jmla.1998.2583

Cited by 79 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In effect, out of 52 spelling errors, we found 32 cases corresponding to the same spelling error produced by the participants across the two experimental conditions, 8 cases corresponding to 2 different spelling errors, and 12 cases corresponding to either a first correct spelling and then to a spelling error or the reverse. The hypothesis that spelling errors are better characterized as being "knowledge" errors is compatible with the observation that college students are sometimes more confident about their own misspellings than about the correct spelling of low-frequency words (Holmes & Carruthers, 1998). One issue that deserves future research is how incorrect word spellings can become established in memory.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Attentional strategic control over nonlexical and lexical processing in written spelling to dictation in adults

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Attentional strategic control over nonlexical and lexical processing in written spelling to dictation in adults

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Consequently, these observations are most likely to reflect an inherent asymmetry between reading and spelling in terms of task difficulty. Spelling is a more difficult task than reading even for normal literate adults (Bosman and Van Orden, 1997;Holmes and Carruthers, 1998;Kessler and Treiman, 2001), and a significant difference between overall spelling versus reading accuracy was also confirmed in our control subjects [t(30) = −5.904, p< .0001]. Task difficulty effects observed in normal controls are likely to become exaggerated in neurological patients, rendering spelling more vulnerable to the detrimental effects of brain damage in general.…”

Section: ) the Spectrum Of Written Language Impairment: Evidence Forsupporting

confidence: 64%

Phonological dyslexia and dysgraphia: Cognitive mechanisms and neural substrates

Rapcsak

Beeson

Henry

et al. 2009

Cortex

184

155

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To examine the validity of different theoretical assumptions about the neuropsychological mechanisms and lesion correlates of phonological dyslexia and dysgraphia, we studied written and spoken language performance in a large cohort of patients with focal damage to perisylvian cortical regions implicated in phonological processing. Despite considerable variation in accuracy for both words and non-words, the majority of participants demonstrated the increased lexicality effects in reading and spelling that are considered the hallmark features of phonological dyslexia and dysgraphia. Increased lexicality effects were also documented in spoken language tasks such as oral repetition, and patients performed poorly on a battery of phonological tests that did not involve an orthographic component. Furthermore, a composite measure of general phonological ability was strongly predictive of both reading and spelling accuracy, and we obtained evidence that the continuum of severity that characterized the written language disorder of our patients was attributable to an underlying continuum of phonological impairment. Although patients demonstrated qualitatively similar deficits across measures of written and spoken language processing, there were quantitative differences in levels of performance reflecting task difficulty effects. Spelling was more severely affected than reading by the reduction in phonological capacity and this differential vulnerability accounted for occasional disparities between patterns of impairment on the two written language tasks. Our findings suggest that phonological dyslexia and dysgraphia in patients with perisylvian lesions are manifestations of a central or modality-independent phonological deficit rather than the result of damage to cognitive components dedicated to reading or spelling. Our results also provide empirical support for shared-components models of written language processing, according to which the same central cognitive systems support both reading and spelling. Lesiondeficit correlations indicated that phonological dyslexia and dysgraphia may be produced by damage to a variety of perisylvian cortical regions, consistent with distributed network models of phonological processing.

show abstract

“…When writing a word, people must process every letter. When reading, they often do not need to do so (Holmes & Carruthers, 1998). The more thorough processing of letters in spelling may produce representations that are more complete and more lasting than those established through reading alone (Conrad, 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of graphotactic knowledge on adults’ learning of spelling

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments investigated whether and how the learning of spelling by French university students is influenced by the graphotactic legitimacy of the spellings. Participants were exposed to three types of novel spellings: AB, which do not contain doublets (e.g., guprane); AAB, with a doublet before a single consonant, which is legitimate in French (e.g., gupprane); and ABB, with a doublet after a single consonant, which is illegitimate (e.g., guprrane). In Experiment 1, the nonwords were embedded within texts that participants read for meaning. In Experiment 2, participants read the nonwords in isolation, with or without instruction to memorize their spellings; they copied the nonwords in Experiment 3. In all of these conditions, AB and AAB spellings were learned more readily than ABB spellings. Although participants were highly knowledgeable about the illegitimacy of ABB spellings, the orthographic distinctiveness of these spellings did not make them easier to recall than legitimate spellings. When recalling ABB spellings, participants sometimes made transposition errors, doubling the wrong consonant of a cluster (e.g., spelling gupprane instead of guprrane). Participants almost never transposed the doubling for AAB items. Transposition errors, biased in the direction of replacing illegitimate with legitimate orthographic patterns, show that graphotactic knowledge influences memory for specific items. An analysis of the spellings produced in the copy phase and final recall test of Experiment 3 further suggests that transposition errors resulted not so much from reconstructive processes at the time of recall but from reconstructive processes or inefficient encoding at earlier points.

show abstract

The Relation between Reading and Spelling in Skilled Adult Readers

Cited by 79 publications

References 25 publications

Attentional strategic control over nonlexical and lexical processing in written spelling to dictation in adults

Attentional strategic control over nonlexical and lexical processing in written spelling to dictation in adults

Phonological dyslexia and dysgraphia: Cognitive mechanisms and neural substrates

The influence of graphotactic knowledge on adults’ learning of spelling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About