Search

Readers and writers of Spanish use an orthography that is highly transparent. It has been proposed that readers of Spanish can rely on grapheme-phoneme correspondences, alone, to access meaning or phonology from print. In recent years, a number of case studies have yielded evidence inconsistent with this idea. We review these studies with particular focus on those that report evidence for reading based on direct lexical mappings between print, orthographic representations, and meaning or phonology. We report a new case of acquired literacy impairment in Spanish, MJ, who presents a pattern of preserved abilities and deficits symptomatic of deep dyslexia. The patient is unable to read nonwords, but can read a substantial number of words. Her reading is characterized by the production of semantic, visual, and derivational errors. We argue that MJ has a deficit in her lexical selection ability, common to both her reading and her naming problems. We propose that MJ, and the other cases we review, demonstrate that lexical reading is adopted by skilled readers even in a transparent language. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The acquisition of new vocabulary is usually mediated by previous experience with language. In the visual domain, the representation of orthographically unfamiliar words at the phonological or conceptual levels may facilitate their orthographic learning. The neural correlates of this advantage were investigated by recording EEG activity during reading novel and familiar words across three different experiments (n = 22 each), manipulating the availability of previous knowledge on the novel written words. A different pattern of event-related potential (ERP) responses was found depending on the previous training, resembling cross-level top-down interactive effects during vocabulary acquisition. Thus, whereas previous phonological experience caused a modulation at the post-lexical stages of the visual recognition of novel written words (~520 ms), additional semantic training influenced their processing at a lexico-semantic stage (~320 ms). Moreover, early lexical differences (~180 ms) elicited in the absence of previous training did not emerge after both phonological and semantic training, reflecting similar orthographic processing and word-form access. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]