Search

The performance of poor and average readers on cognitive tasks comprising naming time, speech rate, and word series recall and on a phonemic segmentation task was examined in the first part of this study by computing relationships among the tasks and their relation to reading. In the second part of this study, we investigated the performance of the poor and average readers in detail on naming time by analyzing the audiotaped protocols on a computer equipped with a sound system and an analysis program. The subjects were third- and fourth-grade students. Results showed that naming time and speech rate were dependable measures of phonological coding skills and were better predictors of word decoding than were phonemic segmentation and word recall. Poor readers were slower in each of the six rows of the naming-time task, and they paused longer between the rows. A need for studying the development of the cognitive skills along with word decoding is discussed.

A problem of circularity emerges in any attempt to index depth by retention alone. In the present study, reaction time (RT), and heart-rate response were used to index the three qualitatively distinct levels of physical, phonemic, and semantic processing. An additional objective was to distinguish between the three levels under incidental vs intentional learning conditions. Subjects were 46 male undergraduates who were given 30 trials. A trial consisted of the presentation of an orienting question and an imperative word-stimulus separated by a 6-sec. interval. There were three types of questions in order to induce processing to one of the three target levels. The results indicated that recall as well as heart-rate acceleration distinguished between two (physical vs phonemic and semantic) rather than three levels of processing in the incidental condition. Heart-rate change differentiated between incidental and intentional, the intentional condition showing a smaller change. Semantic and phonemic RTs were faster than physical RT, but there were no differences between semantic and phonemic RTs. Intentional recall was superior to incidental recall. It is suggested that psychophysiological indices can provide independent evidence for 'levels of processing.'

Individual differences in digit span, as in any memory span task, can be attributed to item-identification speed (naming time) and memory for order. The relationship between the two was examined in an experiment with 40 EMR and 40 nonretarded children. Order memory and digit span had significant correlations for both groups. Naming time was found to correlate with span only for EMR subjects; span was a linear function of the number of digits named in 2.89 seconds. For nonretarded subjects no relationship between the two was observed. The results for EMR subjects, although interpretable in terms of limited capacity in working memory, were discussed in the context of the substantial correlation between order memory and naming time.

Auditory and visual memory span for letters and component memory processes of TMR young adults with Down syndrome or other etiologies was examined. Component processes of the span task included long-term memory access for labels for the stimuli and memory for the order in which the stimuli were presented. Results indicated that although all subjects had relatively poor auditory memory spans, the Down syndrome group was especially poor at long-term memory access for stimulus identification and at short-term storage and processing of auditory information. Lexical storage and retrieval deficiencies were isolated, accounting for the verbal difficulties experienced by the individuals with Down syndrome, leading to their deficiency in processing lexical information.

This experiment focused on differences that occur with age and reading skill in the use of phonemic codes in short-term retention tasks where stimuli were presented visually. In 1 condition, individuals recalled 6-letter strings composed of rhyming and nonrhyming letters after a 15-sec delay under conditions that permitted phonemic coding and rehearsal. 2 other conditions were designed to suppress (a) rehearsal of certain types of phonemic codes in the delay interval and (b) both phonemic coding at stimulus presentation and rehearsal. Subjects were grade 2 average readers matched in reading skill with grade 4 disabled readers, grade 4 average matched with grade 6 disabled, and grade 6 average matched with grade 4 superior readers. Average readers showed a decrease in errors with age in all 3 conditions, although performance was always better in the nonsuppression condition. In the latter, memory for nonrhyming letters was always better than memory for rhyming letters. Differential use of phonemic codes by good and poor readers in grades 4 and 6 was less than that found in previous research with younger children. Finally, by comparing the performances of grade 2 average with grade 4 disabled readers and grade 4 average with grade 6 disabled readers, the developmental lag hypothesis of reading disability was examined. Problems with testing the hypothesis are discussed.

Math difficulties share many common features with reading difficulties. In as much as they do so, the general approach to reading disability overlaps with math disability. Both math and learning to read share several domain-general features such as long-term and short- term memory, successive and simultaneous processing, flexibility in strategies, attention to details and knowledge-base. The paper reviews the foundational concepts for learning math--magnitude, value, procedure, and estimation. Math disability, therefore, can be identified in terms of the domain-general cognitive processes as well as difficulties in mathematical operations involving Magnitude, Value, Procedure, and Estimation. The review, in its final section, presents some empirical studies of math learning and cognitive intervention from contemporary literature. The authors conclude that there are many different kinds of learning difficulties, and many varieties of math learning disabilities. It should be recognized that many areas of the brain contribute to the successful learning and application of math skills.

The purpose of the present study was twofold: (a) to examine the extent to which Chinese dyslexic children experience deficits in phonological and orthographic processing skills and (b) to examine if Chinese dyslexia is associated with deficits in Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive (PASS) processing. A total of 27 Grade 4 children with dyslexia (DYS), 27 Grade 4 chronological age (CA) controls, and 27 Grade 2 reading age (RA) controls were tested on measures of phonological awareness, rapid naming, phonological memory, PASS, reading accuracy, and reading fluency. The results indicated that the DYS group performed significantly poorer than the CA and RA groups on both measures of phonological awareness and on a measure of orthographic processing but comparably to the RA group on a measure of rapid naming and both measures of phonological memory. In regard to the PASS processing skills, the DYS group performed worse than the CA controls on Successive and Simultaneous processing but comparably to the RA group on all PASS processing skills. Implications of these findings for early identification and intervention of reading difficulties are discussed. (Contains 3 tables.)

Links between reading and short memory span, slow naming time, and slow speech rate were investigated for 140 fifth and sixth grade students given a reading test and tests of the 3 variables. Reading was best predicted by naming time, followed by speech rate; prediction from memory span was weak. (SLD)

Twenty-eight profoundly deaf students, aged eight to 11, did not recall spatial order of viewed pictures better than temporal order, were not less competent in probed recognition than 66 age-equivalent hearing students, and made fewer recognitions in temporal-probe than in spatial-probe conditions. Other results were found. (Author/MC)

Average and backward readers from Grades 2, 4, and 6 were examined for their performance on five cognitive tasks, three of which measured memory span. Results were consistent with a developmental trend and increment with reading competence. No differences were obtained between matched groups, which supported a developmental interpretation. (Author/CL)