发展性阅读障碍者的快速命名缺陷

快速命名任务是一种需要命名多个高熟悉项目的认知任务,尤其适合用来对成因复杂的发展性阅读障碍进行研究。许多研究者使用不同类型的快速命名任务发现,发展性阅读障碍者的快速命名缺陷在眼动过程表现为中央凹和副中央凹的加工困难,在认知过程中表现为抑制能力较差等。未来的研究中应该注意到快速命名缺陷的复杂性,采用多种方法相结合的方式来探究快速命名缺陷的本质,从而建立系统性的假说。     

汉语发展性阅读障碍儿童快速命名缺陷的眼动研究

关于汉语发展性阅读障碍儿童的快速命名缺陷存在两种理论争论：副中央凹预视效益小和副中央凹负荷代价大。本研究采用修订后的汉字快速命名范式,操纵副中央凹预视和负荷两个变量,记录阅读障碍、年龄以及能力匹配儿童的眼动轨迹,区分两种理论争论。结果发现汉语阅读障碍儿童在副中央凹预视效益量上小于年龄匹配组,但在负荷代价上并无显著差异。该结果支持汉语阅读障碍儿童的快速命名缺陷源于副中央凹预视效益小,而非负荷代价大的观点。     

汉语发展性阅读障碍儿童的快速命名缺陷:副中央凹预视效益小和负荷代价大之争

关于汉语发展性阅读障碍儿童的快速命名缺陷存在两种理论争论:副中央凹预视效益小和副中央凹负荷代价大。本研究采用修订的汉字快速命名范式,操纵副中央凹预视和负荷两个变量,记录阅读障碍、年龄匹配以及能力匹配儿童的眼动轨迹,区分两种理论争论。结果发现阅读障碍儿童在副中央凹预视效益量上小于年龄匹配组,但在负荷代价上并无显著差异。结果支持汉语阅读障碍儿童快速命名缺陷源于副中央凹预视效益小,而非负荷代价大的观点。     

汉语阅读障碍的语音加工及正字法加工缺陷的实验研究

本研究对汉语阅读障碍的加工缺陷进行探讨,期望有助于揭示语言加工的普遍性与特殊性,以及阅读障碍的成因,并可为后期的干预提供帮助。研究采用改编的言语认知测验对阅读水平匹配组与阅读障碍组和生理年龄匹配组进行比较后发现,阅读障碍组在语音意识和正字法加工任务上的成绩均明显差于生理年龄控制组和阅读水平匹配组;阅读障碍组在快速命名和语音记忆任务上的成绩不如生理年龄匹配组,仅达到阅读水平匹配组水平。因此,汉语发展性阅读障碍儿童存在语音意识和正字法加工缺陷,这两种缺陷可能是阅读障碍儿童面临的最主要的两大缺陷;阅读障碍儿童在快速命名和语音记忆上的不足可能是发展迟滞所致。同时,大多数的汉语阅读障碍儿童存在不止一种的认知缺陷。阅读障碍儿童在语音意识和正字法加工上存在缺陷的比例最高。     

发展性阅读障碍视听时间整合缺陷可能的机制：视听时间再校准能力受损

发展性阅读障碍的本质一直是研究者争论的焦点。大量研究发现, 阅读障碍者具有视听时间整合缺陷。然而, 这些研究仅考察了阅读障碍者视听时间整合加工的整体表现, 也就是平均水平的表现, 却对整合加工的变化过程缺乏探讨。视听时间再校准反映了视听时间整合的动态加工过程, 对内部时间表征与感觉输入之间差异的再校准困难则会导致多感觉整合受损, 而阅读障碍者的再校准相关能力存在缺陷。因此, 视听时间再校准能力受损可能是发展性阅读障碍视听时间整合缺陷的根本原因。未来的研究需要进一步考察发展性阅读障碍者视听时间再校准能力的具体表现, 以及这些表现背后的认知神经机制。     

汉语发展性阅读障碍亚类型的初步探讨

以阅读水平匹配组为参照对29名汉语发展性阅读障碍儿童的认知缺陷模式进行了分析,并考察了不同亚类型阅读障碍儿童的汉字识别模式。结果表明汉语发展性阅读障碍存在不同的亚类型,以语音缺陷型、快速命名缺陷型及两者结合的双重缺陷型为主,与英语国家研究中的双重缺陷假设一致。语音缺陷型儿童汉字识别时有更多的语义错误,对声旁中的部分语音线索不敏感;快速命名缺陷型儿童汉字识别时依赖声旁语音线索,表现出阅读发展的一般延迟;双重或多重认知缺陷型是阅读损伤最严重的亚类型     

基于PASS模型的汉语阅读障碍认知加工特点的实验研究

研究以智力的PASS认知模型为基础,考察了3-5年级阅读障碍组和正常对照组的PASS认知加工特点,探究汉语阅读障碍儿童的PASS认知缺陷模式,为后期的干预提供理论上的支持和帮助。结果发现,PASS四个认知加工均存在明显的年级差异,低年级儿童的PASS认知加工能力明显不如中高年级儿童。汉语阅读障碍儿童在DN: CAS 12项分任务上的成绩均低于正常对照组儿童。同时,大多数汉语阅读障碍儿童存在不止一种的PASS认知加工缺陷,即汉语发展性阅读障碍内部是一个异质群体;阅读障碍儿童在继时性加工上存在的问题最为严重,存在缺陷的人数也最多。     

发展性阅读障碍亚类型研究进展

发展性阅读障碍是一种特殊的学习障碍,伴有多种认知缺陷并且存在不同的亚类型。依据相关的阅读模型理论,阅读障碍可划分为语音型和表层型。从认知缺陷角度出发,语音加工缺陷是主要的缺陷表现,以此为特征形成一种主要的阅读障碍的亚类型,同时还有以正字法加工缺陷和快速命名缺陷为主的其他亚类型。而以基本感知觉缺陷为标准,主要有以视觉加工缺陷和以听觉加工缺陷为主的两种亚类型。在汉语条件下,依据同样的阅读模型理论,语音型阅读障碍亚类型比例明显低于拼音文字条件下的。汉语阅读障碍也具有分别以语音加工缺陷、快速命名缺陷和正字法加工缺陷为主要认知缺陷的亚类型。未来有必要从神经机制角度进一步明确不同亚类型的神经基础。     

不同阅读水平儿童中央执行系统比较研究

本研究通过两部分实验探讨汉语发展性阅读障碍儿童与正常儿童中央执行系统的容量差异和这种差异的性质。通过比较匹配生理年龄的不同阅读水平儿童在自定步速和固定步速的复杂阅读广度测验中的成绩,发现发展性阅读障碍儿童在两种阅读广度测验中都表现出中央执行系统容量的缺陷,这种缺陷既不能用加工效率理论,也不能用资源分配理论来解释,而符合一般容量假设。因此,本研究支持发展性阅读障碍儿童存在实时加工和存储信息的一般容量缺陷。     

汉语发展性阅读障碍儿童的主要亚类型分析*

采用语音意识测验、语素意识测验、正字法意识测验和快速命名测验对发展性阅读障碍儿童和阅读水平匹配组儿童进行测验。采用标准差切分法对阅读障碍的主要亚类型进行分析。结果发现,具有语音意识缺陷的人数比例最大,其次是正字法意识缺陷。结论:汉语发展性阅读障碍的主要亚类型为语音意识缺陷和正字法意识缺陷,快速命名缺陷和语素意识缺陷在汉语阅读障碍儿童中存在,但只是次要缺陷。     

Eye–voice span during rapid automatized naming of digits and dice in Chinese normal and dyslexic children

We measured Chinese dyslexic and control children's eye movements during rapid automatized naming (RAN) with alphanumeric (digits) and symbolic (dice surfaces) stimuli. Both types of stimuli required identical oral responses, controlling for effects associated with speech production. Results showed that naming dice was much slower than naming digits for both groups, but group differences in eye‐movement measures and in the eye–voice span (i.e. the distance between the currently fixated item and the voiced item) were generally larger in digit‐RAN than in dice‐RAN. In addition, dyslexics were less efficient in parafoveal processing in these RAN tasks. Since the two RAN tasks required the same phonological output and on the assumption that naming dice is less practiced than naming digits in general, the results suggest that the translation of alphanumeric visual symbols into phonological codes is less efficient in dyslexic children. The dissociation of the print‐to‐sound conversion and phonological representation suggests that the degree of automaticity in translation from visual symbols to phonological codes in addition to phonological processing per se is also critical to understanding dyslexia.     

Multiple stimulus presentation yields larger deficits in children with developmental dyslexia: A study with reading and RAN-type tasks

In this study, we examined the effect of multiple versus single stimulus presentation in typically developing readers and children with developmental dyslexia. The tasks involved either reading single words or arrays of words or naming single or multiple colors and digits (rapid automatized naming or RAN). To be able to compare these sets of conditions, we recorded total response times (i.e., the time between stimulus onset and the end of the participant’s vocal response) in all cases. The study included 43 typically developing readers and 25 children with dyslexia.

Results indicate that typically developing readers have a clear advantage with multiple over single items on both RAN and reading tasks. The children with dyslexia showed a moderate advantage for multiple stimuli in naming colors and digits but presented the opposite pattern in reading.

With regard to reading, the disproportionate impairment of the children with dyslexia in dealing with multiple arrays suggests difficulty in integrating the multiple subcomponents of the reading task over and above the basic nuclear deficit in decoding words. Regarding the RAN tasks, results confirm that the requirement of integrating multiple subcomponents may be critical in mediating the predictive value of these measures on reading.     

快速与慢速读者的中央凹加工对副中央凹预视的影响

在中文阅读中, 预视量是否存在个体差异及其是否受中央凹加工调节, 尚不清楚。本研究采用眼动技术和边界范式, 通过操纵前目标词的加工负荷(高、低)与目标词的预视(相同、假字)来考察快速与慢速读者的中央凹加工对副中央凹预视的影响。结果显示, 中央凹负荷主效应显著; 快速读者对低负荷词的首次和单次注视短于高负荷词, 而慢速读者对两种负荷词的首次和单次注视无差异, 表明快速读者能更快利用词汇特性加工中央凹词汇。预视主效应显著, 即与假字预视相比, 相同预视使两组读者都对目标词的注视更短、向前眼跳更长、跳读率更高; 而且该效应与中央凹负荷没有交互作用。这表明快速读者与慢速读者提取了等量预视, 且不受其中央凹加工的调节。E-Z读者模型和SWIFT模型不能完全解释当前结果。     

先前语境与随后副中央凹预视在词跳读中的相对作用

词跳读促使了阅读高效地进行。被跳读的词主要根据前文语境和副中央凹预视提前得到加工。分析跳读的影响因素可知,相比于语境因素（特别是预测性）和副中央凹词汇因素（如词频）,副中央凹词的视觉词长信息对跳读的影响最大。跳读密切联系当前眼动控制的两大内容,理想的阅读眼动控制模型需区别语境不同信息（即预测性、语义合理性和句法合理性）对跳读的作用。未来可扩展中文跳读的研究,解决中文跳读单元问题及相关争论。     

Naming fluency in dyslexic and nondyslexic readers: Differential effects of visual crowding in foveal,parafoveal, and peripheral vision

Reading fluency is often indexed by performance on rapid automatized naming (RAN) tasks, which are known to reflect speed of access to lexical codes. We used eye tracking to investigate visual influences on naming fluency. Specifically, we examined how visual crowding affects fluency in a RAN-letters task on an item-by-item basis, by systematically manipulating the interletter spacing of items, such that upcoming letters in the array were viewed in the fovea, parafovea, or periphery relative to a given fixated letter. All lexical information was kept constant. Nondyslexic readers’ gaze durations were longer in foveal than in parafoveal and peripheral trials, indicating that visual crowding slows processing even for fluent readers. Dyslexics’ gaze durations were longer in foveal and parafoveal trials than in peripheral trials. Our results suggest that for dyslexic readers, influences of crowding on naming speed extend to a broader visual span (to parafoveal vision) than that for nondyslexic readers, but do not extend as far as peripheral vision. The findings extend previous research by elucidating the different visual spans within which crowding operates for dyslexic and nondyslexic readers in an online fluency task.     

Eye movements and the modulation of parafoveal processing by foveal processing difficulty: A reexamination

Henderson and Ferreira (1990) found that foveal load (manipulated via word frequency) modulates parafoveal processing, thereby affecting the amount of preview benefit obtained from the word to the right of fixation. The present experiment used the eye-contingent boundary paradigm and, consistent with Henderson and Ferreira, showed that foveal load modulated preview benefit for participants who were not aware of the display changes during reading. Also, for these participants, foveal load modulated preview benefit regardless of fixation durations on the foveal word. For participants who were aware of the display change, preview benefits occurred regardless of foveal processing difficulty. These results have important implications for understanding the way in which foveal load influences parafoveal processing during reading.