Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T12:34:06.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Indexing effects of phonological representational strength on rapid naming using rime neighborhood density

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2018

REBECCA WISEHEART ,
SUNJUNG KIM ,
LINDA J. LOMBARDINO  and
LORI J. P. ALTMANN
REBECCA WISEHEART*
Affiliation:
St. John’s University
SUNJUNG KIM
Affiliation:
University of Central Arkansas
LINDA J. LOMBARDINO
Affiliation:
University of Florida
LORI J. P. ALTMANN
Affiliation:
University of Florida
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Rebecca Wiseheart, St. John’s University, Communication Sciences & Disorders, 8000 Utopia Parkway, Queens, NY 11439. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A long-standing hypothesis is that rapid automatized naming (RAN) measures access to phonological representations stored in long-term memory, but this has been difficult to test experimentally because phonological representations are mental constructs not easily operationalized. Here, we provide a method to test this theory using rime neighborhood density as an index of phonological representational strength. Thirty adults completed four picture-naming tasks orthogonalized for item composition (repeating vs. nonrepeating) and presentation format (discrete vs. serial). Each task was presented in two dichotomous conditions of rime neighborhood density (dense and sparse). There was no effect of rime neighborhood density on naming speed in the discrete nonrepeated (confrontation naming) task. However, rime neighborhood density significantly facilitated naming speed for serial repeated (i.e., RAN), discrete repeated, and serial nonrepeated tasks (ps<.03). The effect was weakest for confrontation naming (d=0.14) and strongest for both discrete and serial RAN tasks (ds=1.01), suggesting that repeating items, not serial presentation, makes RAN uniquely sensitive to manipulations of rime neighborhood density and, by proxy, phonological representations.

Keywords

confrontation namingnaming speedphonological accessphonological representationsrapid automatized naming; rime neighborhood density
Type
Original Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , March 2019 , pp. 253 - 277
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Andrews, S. (1992). Frequency and neighborhood effects on lexical access: Lexical similarities or orthographic redundancy? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 234–254.Google Scholar
Arnold, H. S., Conture, E. G., & Ohde, R. N. (2005). Phonological neighborhood density in the picture naming of young children who stutter: Preliminary study. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 30, 125–148.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Van Rijn, H. (1995). The CELEX lexical data base on CD-ROM. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Cortese, M. J., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., … Treiman, R. (2007). The English lexicon project. Behavioral Research Methods, 39, 445–459.Google Scholar
Baus, C., Costa, A., & Carreiras, M. (2008). Neighborhood density and frequency effects in speech production: A case for interactivity. Language and Cognitive Process, 23, 866–888.Google Scholar
Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Thomson, J., Wagner, R., Swanson, H. L., Wijsman, E. M., & Raskind, W. (2006). Modeling phonological core deficits within a working memory architecture in children and adults with developmental dyslexia. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 165–198.Google Scholar
Boada, R., & Pennington, B. F. (2006). Deficient implicit phonological representations in children with dyslexia. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 95, 153–193.Google Scholar
Clarke, P., Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. (2005). Individual differences in RAN and reading: A response timing analysis. Journal of Research in Reading, 28, 73–86.Google Scholar
Compton, D. L. (2003). The influence of item composition on RAN letter performance in first-grade children. Journal of Special Education, 37, 81–94.Google Scholar
De Cara, B., & Goswami, U. (2002). Similarity relations among spoken words: The special status of rimes in English. Behavioral Research Methods, 34, 416–423.Google Scholar
Decker, S. L., Roberts, A. M., & Englund, J. A. (2013). Cognitive predictors of rapid picture naming. Learning and Individual Differences, 25, 141–149.Google Scholar
de Jong, P. F. (2011). What discrete and serial rapid automatized naming can reveal about reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15, 314–337.Google Scholar
de Jong, P. F., & van der Leij, A. (2002). Effects of phonological abilities and linguistic comprehension on the development of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 51–77.Google Scholar
Denckla, M. B., & Cutting, L. E. (1999). History and significance of rapid automatized naming. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 29–42.Google Scholar
Di Filippo, G., Zoccolotti, P., & Ziegler, J. C. (2008). Rapid naming deficits in dyslexia: A stumbling block for the perceptual anchor theory of dyslexia. Developmental Science, 11, F40–F47.Google Scholar
Elbro, C., Borstrøm, I., & Petersen, D. K. (1998). Predicting dyslexia from kindergarten: The importance of distinctness of phonological representations of lexical items. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 36–60.Google Scholar
Elbro, C., & Jensen, M. N. (2005). Quality of phonological representations, verbal learning, and phoneme awareness in dyslexic and normal readers. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 46, 375–384.Google Scholar
Felton, R. H., Naylor, C. E., & Wood, F. B. (1990). Neuropsychological profile of adult dyslexics. Brain and Language, 39, 485–497.Google Scholar
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2016). IBM SPSS Statistics 23 step by step: A simple guide and reference. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Georgiou, G., & Parrila, R. (2013). Rapid naming and reading: A review. In H. L. Swanson, K. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 169–185). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Georgiou, G. K., Parrila, R., Cui, Y., & Papadopoulos, T. C. (2013). Why is rapid automatized naming related to reading? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 115, 218–225.Google Scholar
Georgiou, G. K., Parrila, R., & Kirby, J. R. (2009). RAN components and reading development from Grade 3 to Grade 5: What underlies their relationship? Scientific Studies of Reading, 13, 508–534.Google Scholar
Georgiou, G. K., Parrila, R., & Papadopoulos, T. C. (2016). The anatomy of the RAN-reading relationship. Reading and Writing, 29, 1793–1815.Google Scholar
Gordon, J. K., & Kurczek, J. C. (2014). The ageing neighborhood: Phonological density in naming. Language, Cognition, Neuroscience, 29, 326–344.Google Scholar
Goswami, U. (2002). Phonology, reading development, and dyslexia: A cross-linguistic perspective. Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 139–163.Google Scholar
Guardia, P., & Goswami, U. (2008). Neighborhood density effects on STM, RAN, and reading skills in Spanish. Paper presented at the 2008 Society for the Scientific Study of Reading (SSSR) Conference, Asheville, NC.Google Scholar
Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2014). The interface between spoken and written language: Developmental disorders. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 369, 20120395.Google Scholar
Jarvis, B. G. (2006). Direct RT Precision Timing Software [Computer software]. New York: Empirisoft.Google Scholar
Jones, M. W., Ashby, J., & Branigan, H. P. (2013). Dyslexia and fluency: Parafoveal and foveal influences on rapid automatized naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 554.Google Scholar
Jones, M. W., Branigan, H. P., & Kelly, M. L. (2009). Dyslexic and nondyslexic reading fluency: Rapid automatized naming and the importance of continuous lists. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 567–572.Google Scholar
Jones, M. W., Obregón, M., Kelly, M. L., & Branigan, H. P. (2008). Elucidating the component processes involved in dyslexic and non-dyslexic reading fluency: An eye-tracking study. Cognition, 109, 389–407.Google Scholar
Kirby, J. R., Georgiou, G. K., Martinussen, R., & Parrila, R. (2010). Naming speed and reading: From prediction to instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 341–362.Google Scholar
Kirtley, C., Bryant, P., MacLean, M., & Bradley, L. (1989). Rhyme, rime, and the onset of reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 48, 224–245.Google Scholar
Kuperman, V., Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H., & Brysbaert, M. (2012). Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30,000 English words. Behavioral Research Methods, 44, 978–990.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J., & Wheeldon, L. (1994). Do speakers have access to a mental syllabary? Cognition, 50, 239–269.Google Scholar
Logan, J. A., & Schatschneider, C. (2014). Component processes in reading: Shared and unique variance in serial and isolated naming speed. Reading and Writing, 27, 905–922.Google Scholar
Logan, J. A., Schatschneider, C., & Wagner, R. K. (2011). Rapid serial naming and reading ability: The role of lexical access. Reading and Writing, 24, 1–25.Google Scholar
Lombardino, L. J., & Gauger, L. M. (2014). Dyslexia: Why is this diagnosis so challenging? Perspectives in Language, Learning, and Education, 21, 98–113.Google Scholar
Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing, 19, 1.Google Scholar
Manis, F. R., Seidenberg, M. S., & Doi, L. M. (1999). See Dick RAN: Rapid naming and the longitudinal prediction of reading subskills in first and second graders. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 129–157.Google Scholar
Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Boukrina, O. V. (2008). Sensitivity to phonological similarity within and across languages. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 37, 141–170.Google Scholar
McBride-Chang, C., & Manis, F. R. (1996). Structural invariance in the associations of naming speed, phonological awareness, and verbal reasoning in good and poor readers: A test of the double deficit hypothesis. Reading and Writing, 8, 323–339.Google Scholar
Metsala, J. L., & Walley, A. C. (1998). Spoken vocabulary growth and the segmental restructuring of lexical representations: Precursors to phonemic awareness and early reading ability. In J. L. Metsala & L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 89–120). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Moll, K., Ramus, F., Bartling, J., Bruder, J., Kunze, S., Neuhoff, N., … Tóth, D. (2014). Cognitive mechanisms underlying reading and spelling development in five European orthographies. Learning and Instruction, 29, 65–77.Google Scholar
Norton, E. S., & Wolf, M. (2012). Rapid automatized naming (RAN) and reading fluency: Implications for understanding and treatment of reading disabilities. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 427–452.Google Scholar
Pérez, M. A. (2007). Age of acquisition persists as the main factor in picture naming when cumulative word frequency and frequency trajectory are controlled. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 32–42.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. A., Finger, E., & Hogaboam, T. W. (1978). Sources of vocalization latency differences between skilled and less skilled young readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 730.Google Scholar
Powell, D., Stainthorp, R., Stuart, M., Garwood, H., & Quinlan, P. (2007). An experimental comparison between rival theories of rapid automatized naming performance and its relationship to reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 98, 46–68.Google Scholar
Ramus, F., & Szenkovits, G. (2008). What phonological deficit? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 129–141.Google Scholar
Ratner, N. B., Newman, R., & Strekas, A. (2009). Effects of word frequency and phonological neighborhood characteristics on confrontation naming in children who stutter and normally fluent peers. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 34, 225–241.Google Scholar
Sadat, J., Martin, C. D., Costa, A., & Alario, F. X. (2014). Reconciling phonological neighborhood effects in speech production through single trial analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 68, 33–58.Google Scholar
Scarborough, H. S. (1998). Predicting the future achievement of second graders with reading disabilities: Contributions of phonemic awareness, verbal memory, rapid naming, and IQ. Annals of. Dyslexia, 48, 115–136.Google Scholar
Shipley, W. C. (1940). A self-administering scale for measuring intellectual impairment and deterioration. Journal of Psychology, 9, 371–377.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174.Google Scholar
Song, S., Georgiou, G. K., Su, M., & Hua, S. (2016). How well do phonological awareness and rapid automatized naming correlate with Chinese reading accuracy and fluency? A meta-analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 20, 99–123.Google Scholar
Storkel, H. L. (2002). Restructuring of similarity neighbourhoods in the developing mental lexicon. Journal of Child Language, 29, 251–274.Google Scholar
Stringer, R. W., Toplak, M. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2004). Differential relationships between RAN performance, behaviour ratings, and executive function measures: Searching for a double dissociation. Reading & Writing, 17, 891–914.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. M., Richardson, U., & Goswami, U. (2005). Phonological similarity neighborhoods and children’s short-term memory: Typical development and dyslexia. Memory and Cognition, 3, 1210–1219.Google Scholar
Vitevitch, M. S. (2002). The influence of phonological similarity neighborhoods on speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 735.Google Scholar
Vitevitch, M. S., & Stamer, M. K. (2006). The curious case of competition in Spanish speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 760–770.Google Scholar
Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192.Google Scholar
Wagner, R. K., Torgeson, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., & Pearson, N. A. (2013). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing: CTOPP2. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
Wiseheart, M. (2008). Effect size calculator. Cognitive Flexibility Lab; formerly Cespeda NJ. Accessed August 8, 2017, at http://www.cognitiveflexibility.org/effectsize/ Google Scholar
Wolf, M., & Bowers, P. G. (1999). The double-deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 415.Google Scholar
Wolf, M., Bowers, P. G., & Biddle, K. (2000). Naming-speed processes, timing, and reading: A conceptual review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 387–407.Google Scholar
Yan, M., Pan, J., Laubrock, J., Kliegl, R., & Shu, H. (2013). Parafoveal processing efficiency in rapid automatized naming: A comparison between Chinese normal and dyslexic children. Journal of Experimental. Child Psychology, 115, 579–589.Google Scholar
Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 3.Google Scholar