Motor sequence learning and reading ability: is poor reading associated with sequencing deficits?

Although it is widely assumed that children with learning disabilities have "sequencing problems," these have not been well specified. A non-verbal serial reaction time (SRT) paradigm was used to evaluate motor sequence learning in 422 children between ages 7 and 11 in relation to reading, cognitive ability level, and attention problems. The children demonstrated the response profile typically associated with motor sequence learning, but the component of the profile indicative of implicit sequence learning was not reliably associated with any of the predictors. Cognitive ability predicted overall response time; cognitive ability, reading, and attention problems each predicted overall accuracy. Explicit learning was predicted by cognitive ability, but not by reading or attention problems. Thus, we found no evidence that poor reading is preferentially associated with a domain general deficit in sequential learning.     

Neurological origins of poor reading comprehension despite fast word decoding?

Barnes, Faulkner, and Dennis (2001) found that hydrocephalic children (mean age = 11.5 years) of average or above-average verbal intelligence exhibit poor reading comprehension despite their fast and accurate decoding skills on individual words. This finding attracts the attention of reading researchers because it appears to be against the following standard principle of reading comprehension failure (Gough & Hillinger, 1980), thereby provoking basic issues centering around it (e.g., Stanovich, 1991): Reading Comprehension = Word Decoding x Listening Comprehension. This formula indicates that when listening comprehension is kept well within the normal range, reading comprehension is highly correlated with word decoding (e.g., Perfetti, 1985). In contrast, with poor listening comprehension children would be poor readers however good they may be at reading words (e.g., Cain, Oakhill, & Bryant, 2000). Although Barnes et al. clearly demonstrated that children with hydrocephalus decoded individual words better than they comprehended text, it is not readily apparent whether their findings are inconsistent with the standard principle. The purpose of the present article is twofold. The first is to examine whether Barnes et al.'s findings constitute a counterexample of the above principle. (Note that Barnes et al. did not address this question.) The second and more important purpose is to discuss the possible origins of the decoding-better-than-sentence/text-comprehension pattern. We also present some pedagogical implications for poor readers such as hydrocephalic children.     

Reading for repetition and reading for translation: do they involve the same processes?

Theories of translation differ in the role assigned to the reformulation process. One view, the "horizontal" approach, considers that translation involves on-line searches for matches between linguistic entries in the two languages involved [Gerver, D. (1976). Empirical studies of simultaneous interpretation: A review and a model. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Translation: Applications and research (pp. 165-207). New York: Gardiner]. The second view, the "vertical" approach, assumes that on-line reformulation does not take place while reading: translation involves giving lexical expression to the meaning extracted after comprehension [Seleskovitch, D. (1976). Interpretation: A psychological approach to translating. In R.W. Brislin (Ed.), Translation: Applications and research (pp. 92-116). New York: Gardner]. In four experiments, translators or bilinguals read sentences for repetition or for translation. When participants read for translation, on-line and global comprehension was affected by lexical ambiguity and memory load (Experiment 1a and 1b). Furthermore, cognate words located at the final portion of the sentences facilitated performance (Experiment 2a and 2b). However, when participants were asked to understand and repeat the sentences, lexical ambiguity and the cognate status of the words did not have any effect. This pattern of results provides support for horizontal theories of translation.     

Reading “glasses” will prime “vision,” but reading a pair of “glasses” will not

In a lexical decision task with two primes and a target, the target was preceded 300 msec by the second prime (P2) which in turn was preceded by a brief forward and backward masked first prime (P1). When P1 and P2 were unrelated, reaction times were faster when the target was related to P2 (e.g.,wave SALT ... pepper) than when the target was unrelated to P2 (and P1—e.g.,wave LOAN ... pepper). However, this semantic priming effect was reduced to statistically nonsignificant levels when P1 and P2 were repetitions of the same word. That is, priming did not occur forsalt SALT ... pepper relative toloan LOAN ... pepper. This reduction in priming was observed whether P2 and the target were strongly or weakly related. These findings raise problems for current accounts of semantic priming.