Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T04:32:05.747Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards a universal model of reading

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 August 2012

Ram Frost
Ram Frost*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem 91905, Israel, and Haskins Laboratories, New Haven, CT 06511. [email protected]://psychology.huji.ac.il/en/?cmd=Faculty.113&letter=f&act=read&id=42~frost/http://www.haskins.yale.edu/staff/ramfrost.htmlhttp://psychology.huji.ac.il/en/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the last decade, reading research has seen a paradigmatic shift. A new wave of computational models of orthographic processing that offer various forms of noisy position or context-sensitive coding have revolutionized the field of visual word recognition. The influx of such models stems mainly from consistent findings, coming mostly from European languages, regarding an apparent insensitivity of skilled readers to letter order. Underlying the current revolution is the theoretical assumption that the insensitivity of readers to letter order reflects the special way in which the human brain encodes the position of letters in printed words. The present article discusses the theoretical shortcomings and misconceptions of this approach to visual word recognition. A systematic review of data obtained from a variety of languages demonstrates that letter-order insensitivity is neither a general property of the cognitive system nor a property of the brain in encoding letters. Rather, it is a variant and idiosyncratic characteristic of some languages, mostly European, reflecting a strategy of optimizing encoding resources, given the specific structure of words. Since the main goal of reading research is to develop theories that describe the fundamental and invariant phenomena of reading across orthographies, an alternative approach to model visual word recognition is offered. The dimensions of a possible universal model of reading, which outlines the common cognitive operations involved in orthographic processing in all writing systems, are discussed.

Keywords

learning modelsletter position codinglexical organizationlexical spacemorphological processingstructured modelsvisual word recognition
Type
Target Article
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 35 , Issue 5 , October 2012 , pp. 263 - 279
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

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

Acha, J. & Perea, M. (2010) Does kaniso activate CASINO? Input coding schemes and phonology in visual-word recognition. Experimental Psychology 57:245–51.Google Scholar
Adelman, J. S., Marquis, S. J. & Sabatos-DeVito, M. G. (2011) Letters in words are read simultaneously, not in left-to-right sequence. Psychological Science 21:1799–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentin, S. & Frost, R. (1987) Processing lexical ambiguity and visual word recognition in a deep orthography. Memory and Cognition 15:13–23.Google Scholar
Bentin, S., Hammer, R. & Cahan, S. (1991) The effects of aging and first grade schooling on the development of phonological awareness. American Psychological Science 2:271–74.Google Scholar
Bertelson, P., Morais, J., Alegria, J. & Content, A. (1985) Phonetic analysis capacity and learning to read. Nature 313:73–74.Google Scholar
Bertram, R. & Hyönä, J. (2003) The length of a complex word modifies the role of morphological structure: Evidence from reading short and long Finnish compounds. Journal of Memory and Language 48:615–34.Google Scholar
Bialek, W., Nemenman, I. & Tishby, N. (2001) Predictability, complexity, and learning. Neural Computation 13:2409–63.Google Scholar
Borgwaldt, S. R., Hellwig, F. M. & De Groot, A. M. B. (2004) Word-initial entropy in five languages: Letter to sound, and sound to letter. Written Language and Literacy 7:165–84.Google Scholar
Borgwaldt, S. R., Hellwig, F. M. & De Groot, A. M. B. (2005) Onset entropy matters: Letter-to-phoneme mappings in seven languages. Reading and Writing 18:211–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowers, J. S. & Michita, Y. (1998) An investigation into the structure and acquisition of orthographic knowledge: Evidence from cross-script Kanji–Hiragana priming. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 5:259–64.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. S. & O'Dowd, D. (1958) A note on the informativeness of parts of words. Language and Speech 1:98–101.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M. (2001) Prelexical phonological coding of visual words in Dutch: Automatic after all. Memory and Cognition 29:765–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chao, Y. R. (1968) Language and symbolic systems. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Christianson, K., Johnson, R. L. & Rayner, K. I. (2005) Letter transpositions within and across morphemes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 31:1327–39.Google Scholar
Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R. & Ziegler, J. (2001) DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review 108:204–56.Google Scholar
Cossu, J., Shankweiler, D., Liberman, I. Y., Katz, L. & Tola, G. (1988) Awareness of phonological segments and reading ability in Italian children. Applied Psycholinguistics 9:1–16.Google Scholar
Davis, C. J. (1999) The self-organising lexical acquisition and recognition (SOLAR) model of visual word recognition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New South Wales.Google Scholar
Davis, C. J. (2010) The spatial coding model of visual word identification. Psychological Review 117:713–58.Google Scholar
Davis, C. J. & Bowers, J. (2004) What do letter migration errors reveal about letter position coding in visual word recognition? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 30:923–41.Google Scholar
Davis, C. J. & Bowers, J. (2006) Contrasting five different theories of letter position coding: Evidence from orthographic similarity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 32:535–57.Google Scholar
DeFrancis, J. (1989) Visible speech: The diverse oneness of writing systems. University of Hawaii Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehaene, S., Cohen, L., Sigman, M. & Vinckier, F. (2005) The neural code for written words: A proposal. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9:335–41.Google Scholar
Deutsch, A., Frost, R., Peleg, S., Pollatsek, A. & Rayner, K. (2003) Early morphological effects in reading: Evidence from parafoveal preview benefit in Hebrew. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 10(2):415–22.Google Scholar
Deutsch, A., Frost, R., Pollatsek, A. & Rayner, K. (2000) Early morphological effects in word recognition in Hebrew: Evidence from parafoveal preview benefit. Language and Cognitive Processes 15:487–506.Google Scholar
Deutsch, A. & Rayner, K. (1999) Initial fixation location effects in reading Hebrew words. Language and Cognitive Processes 14:393–421.Google Scholar
Diependaele, K., Ziegler, J. & Grainger, J. (2010) Fast phonology and the bi-modal interactive activation model. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 22:764–78.Google Scholar
Duñabeitia, J. A., Perea, M. & Carreiras, M. (2007) Do transposed-letter similarity effects occur at a morpheme level? Evidence for morpho-orthographic decomposition. Cognition 105(3):691–703.Google Scholar
Ellis, A. W. & Young, A. W. (1988/1996) Human cognitive neuropsychology. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Endress, A. D. & Mehler, J. (2009) The surprising power of statistical learning: When fragment knowledge leads to false memories of unheard words. Journal of Memory and Language 60:351–67.Google Scholar
Evans, J., Saffran, J. & Robe-Torres, K. (2009) Statistical learning in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 52:321–36.Google Scholar
Ferrand, L. & Grainger, J. (1992) Phonology and orthography in visual word recognition: Evidence from masked nonword priming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A: Human Experimental Psychology 45:353–72.Google Scholar
Forster, K. I. (1976) Accessing the mental lexicon. In: New approaches to language mechanisms, ed. Wales, R. J. & Walk, E., pp. 257–87. North-Holland.Google Scholar
Forster, K. I. & Davis, C. (1991) The density constraint on form-priming in the naming task: Interference effects from a masked prime. Journal of Memory and Language 30:1–25.Google Scholar
Forster, K. I., Davis, C., Schocknecht, C. & Carter, R. (1987) Masked priming with graphemically related forms: Repetition or partial activation? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A: Human Experimental Psychology 39:211–51.Google Scholar
Friedmann, N., Dotan, D. & Rahamim, E. (2010) Is the visual analyzer orthographic-specific? Reading words and numbers in letter position dyslexia. Cortex 46:982–1004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friedmann, N. & Gvion, A. (2001) Letter position dyslexia. Cognitive Neuropsychology 18:673–96.Google Scholar
Friedmann, N. & Gvion, A. (2005) Letter form as a constraint for errors in neglect dyslexia and letter position dyslexia. Behavioural Neurology 16:145–58.Google Scholar
Friedmann, N. & Haddad-Hanna, M. (in press a) Letter position dyslexia in Arabic: From form to position. Behavioural Neurology 25. doi: 10.3233/BEN-2012-119004.Google Scholar
Frost, R. (1994) Prelexical and postlexical strategies in reading: Evidence from a deep and a shallow orthography. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20:1–16.Google Scholar
Frost, R. (1995) Phonological computation and missing vowels: Mapping lexical involvement in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 21:398–408.Google ScholarPubMed
Frost, R. (1998) Toward a strong phonological theory of visual word recognition: True issues and false trails. Psychological Bulletin 123(1):71–99.Google Scholar
Frost, R. (2006) Becoming literate in Hebrew: The grain-size hypothesis and Semitic orthographic systems. Developmental Science 9:439–40.Google Scholar
Frost, R. (2009) Reading in Hebrew vs. reading in English: Is there a qualitative difference? In: How children learn to read: Current issues and new directions in the integration of cognition, neurobiology and genetics of reading and dyslexia research and practice, ed. Pugh, K. & McCradle, P., pp. 235–54. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Frost, R., Ahissar, M., Gottesman, R. & Tayeb, S. (2003) Are phonological effects fragile? The effect of luminance and exposure duration on form priming and phonological priming. Journal of Memory and Language 48:346–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frost, R., Deutsch, A. & Forster, K. I. (2000a) Decomposing morphologically complex words in a nonlinear morphology. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory, and Cognition 26:751–65.Google Scholar
Frost, R., Deutsch, A., Gilboa, O., Tannenbaum, M. & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2000b) Morphological priming: Dissociation of phonological, semantic, and morphological factors. Memory and Cognition 28:1277–88.Google Scholar
Frost, R., Forster, K. I. & Deutsch, A. (1997) What can we learn from the morphology of Hebrew: A masked priming investigation of morphological representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition 23(4):829–56.Google Scholar
Frost, R., Katz, L. & Bentin, S. (1987) Strategies for visual word recognition and orthographical depth: A multilingual comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 13:104–15.Google Scholar
Frost, R., Kugler, T., Deutsch, A. & Forster, K. I. (2005) Orthographic structure versus morphological structure: Principles of lexical organization in a given language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 31(6):1293–326.Google Scholar
Frost, R., Narkiss, A., Velan, H. & Deutsch, A. (2010) Learning to read Hebrew as a second language: Acquiring “Semitic” markers of reading. Paper presented at the 51st Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, St. Louis, November 2010.Google Scholar
Frost, R. & Yogev, O. (2001) Orthographic and phonological computation in visual word recognition: Evidence from backward masking in Hebrew. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 8:524–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frost, R. & Ziegler, J. (2007) Speech and spelling interaction: The interdependence of visual and auditory word recognition. In: Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics, ed. Gaskell, G., pp. 107–18. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gebhart, A. L., Newport, E. L. & Aslin, R. N. (2009) Statistical learning of adjacent and nonadjacent dependencies among nonlinguistic sounds. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 14:486–90.Google Scholar
Gelb, I. J. (1952) A study of writing: The foundations of grammatology. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1986) The ecological approach to visual perception. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gimson, A. C. (1981) An introduction to the pronunciation of English. Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Gomez, P., Ratcliff, R. & Perea, M. (2008) The overlap model: A model of letter position coding. Psychological Review 115:577–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goswami, U. (2000) Phonological representations, reading development and dyslexia: Towards a cross-linguistic theoretical framework. Dyslexia 6:133–51.Google Scholar
Grainger, J. (2008) Cracking the orthographic code: An introduction. Language and Cognitive Processes 23:1–35.Google Scholar
Grainger, J. & Ferrand, L. (1994) Phonology and orthography in visual word recognition: Effects of masked homophone primes. Journal of Memory and Language 33:218–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grainger, J. & van Heuven, W. (2003) Modeling letter position coding in printed word perception. In: The mental lexicon, ed. Bonin, P., pp. 1–24. Nova Science.Google Scholar
Grainger, J., Granier, J. P., Farioli, F., Van Assche, E. & van Heuven, W. (2006) Letter position information and printed word perception: The relative-position priming constraint. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 32(4):865–84.Google Scholar
Grainger, J. & Whitney, C. (2004) Does the huamn mnid raed wrods as a wlohe? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8:58–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grainger, J. & Ziegler, J. (2011) A dual-route approach to orthographic processing. Frontiers in Psychology 2:54. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00054. (Web journal, online publication).Google Scholar
Gronau, N. & Frost, R. (1997) Prelexical phonologic computation in a deep orthography: Evidence from backward masking in Hebrew. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 4:107–112.Google Scholar
Guerrera, C. & Forster, K. I. (2008) Masked form priming with extreme transposition. Language and Cognitive Processes 23:117–42.Google Scholar
Harm, M. W. & Seidenberg, M. S. (1999) Reading acquisition, phonology, and dyslexia: Insights from a connectionist model. Psychological Review 106:491–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsu, C. H., Tsai, J. L., Lee, C. Y. & Tzeng, O. J. (2009) Orthographic combinability and phonological consistency effects in reading Chinese phonograms: An event-related potential study. Brain and Language 108:56–66.Google Scholar
Humphreys, G. W., Evett, L. J. & Quinlan, P. T. (1990) Orthographic processing in visual word recognition. Cognitive Psychology 22:517–60.Google Scholar
Hunter, Z. R. & Brysbaert, M. (2008) Theoretical analysis of interhemispheric transfer costs in visual word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes 23:165–82.Google Scholar
Inagaki, K., Hatano, G. & Otake, T. (2000) The effect of Kana literacy acquisition on the speech segmentation unit used by Japanese young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 75:70–91.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. L., Perea, M. & Rayner, K. (2007) Transposed-letter effects in reading. Evidence from eye movements and parafoveal preview. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 33:209–29.Google Scholar
Katz, L. & Frost, R. (1992) The reading process is different for different orthographies: The orthographic depth hypothesis. In: Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning: Advances in Psychology, vol. 94, ed. Frost, R. & Katz, L., pp. 67–84. Elsevier/North-Holland.Google Scholar
Kessler, B. & Treiman, R. (1997) Syllable structure and the distribution of phonemes in English syllables. Journal of Memory and Language 37:295–311.Google Scholar
Kinoshita, S. & Norris, D. (2009) Transposed-letter priming of prelexical orthographic representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 35:1–18.Google Scholar
Kubozono, H. (2006) The phonetic and phonological organization of speech in Japanese. In: The handbook of East Asian psycholinguistics, ed. Nakayama, M., Mazuka, R. & Shirai, Y., pp. 191–200. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuperman, V., Bertram, R. & Baayen, R. H. (2008) Morphological dynamics in compound processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 23:1089–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, C. H. & Taft, M. (2009) Are onsets and codas important in processing letter position? A comparison of TL effects in English and Korean. Journal of Memory and Language 60(4):530–42. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, C. H. & Taft, M. (2011) Subsyllabic structure reflected in letter confusability effects in Korean word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 18(1):129–34. doi:10.3758/s13423-010-0028-y.Google Scholar
Lee, C. Y. (2011) The statistical learning perspective on Chinese reading. In: Dyslexia across languages: Orthography and the brain–gene–behavior link, ed. McCardle, P., Miller, B., Lee, J. R. & Tzeng, O. J. L., pp. 44–61. Brookes.Google Scholar
Marshall, J. C. & Newcombe, F. (1973) Patterns of paralexia: A psycholinguistic approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2:179–99.Google Scholar
Mattingly, I. G. (1992) Linguistic awareness and orthographic form. In: Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning, ed. Frost, R. & Katz, L., pp. 11–26. Elsevier/North-Holland.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L. & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981) An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review 88:375–407.Google Scholar
Newport, E. L. & Aslin, R. N. (2004) Learning at a distance: I. Statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies. Cognitive Psychology 48:127–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, D. & Kinoshita, S. (2008) Perception as evidence accumulation and Bayesian inference: Insights from masked priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 137:433–55.Google Scholar
Norris, D., Kinoshita, S. & van Casteren, M. (2010) A stimulus sampling theory of letter identity and order. Journal of Memory and Language 62:254–71.Google Scholar
Ornan, U. (2003) The final word: Mechanism for Hebrew word generation. (In Hebrew). Haifa University Press.Google Scholar
Perea, M., Abu Mallouh, R., & Carreiras, M. (2010) The search of an input coding scheme: Transposed-letter priming in Arabic. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 17(3):375–80.Google Scholar
Perea, M. & Carreiras, M. (2006a) Do transposed-letter similarity effects occur at a prelexical phonological level? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 59:1600–13.Google Scholar
Perea, M. & Carreiras, M. (2006b) Do transposed-letter similarity effects occur at a syllable level? Experimental Psychology 53:308–15.Google Scholar
Perea, M. & Carreiras, M. (2006c) Do transposed-letter effects occur across lexeme boundaries? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 13:418–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perea, M. & Carreiras, M. (2008) Do orthotactics and phonology constrain the transposed-letter effect? Language and Cognitive Processes 23:69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perea, M. & Lupker, S. J. (2003) Transposed-letter confusability effects in masked form priming. In Masked priming: The state of the art, ed. Kinoshita, S. & Lupker, S. J., pp. 97–120. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Perea, M. & Lupker, S. J. (2004) Can CANISO activate CASINO? Transposed-letter similarity effects with nonadjacent letter positions. Journal of Memory and Language 51:231–46.Google Scholar
Perea, M. & Perez, E. (2009) Beyond alphabetic orthographies: The role of form and phonology in transposition effects in Katakana. Language and Cognitive Processes 24:67–88.Google Scholar
Perea, M. & Rosa, E. (2000a) Repetition and form priming interact with neighborhood density at a short stimulus-onset asynchrony. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 7:668–77.Google Scholar
Peressotti, F. & Grainger, J. (1999) The role of letter identity and letter position in orthographic priming. Perception and Psychophysics 61:691–706.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. A. (2011) Reading processes and reading problems: Progress toward a universal reading science. In: Dyslexia across languages: Orthography and the brain-gene-behavior link, ed. McCardle, P., Miller, B., Lee, J. R. & Tzeng, O. J. L., pp. 18–32. Brookes.Google Scholar
Perruchet, P. & Pacton, S. (2006) Implicit learning and statistical learning: One phenomenon, two approaches. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10:233–38.Google Scholar
Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H. & Gibson, E. (2011) Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 108:3526–29.Google Scholar
Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S. & Patterson, K. (1996) Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review 103:56–115.Google Scholar
Rahamim, E. & Friedmann, N. (2009) Developmental letter position dyslexia. [In Hebrew]. Literacy and Language 2:79–109.Google Scholar
Rastle, K. & Davis, M. H. (2008) Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes 23:942–71.Google Scholar
Rastle, K., Davis, M. H. & New, B. (2004) The broth in my brother's brothel: Morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 11:1090–98.Google Scholar
Rayner, K. (1998) Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin 124:372–422.Google Scholar
Rayner, K. (2009) The thirty fifth Sir Frederick Bartlett Lecture: Eye movements and attention during reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 62:1457–506.Google Scholar
Rayner, K., Juhasz, B. J., White, S. J. & Liversedge, S. P. (2007) Does morphological processing in the parafovea influence eye movements in reading? Paper presented at the Fifth Workshop on Morphological Processing, Marseille, June 2007.Google Scholar
Rayner, K., White, S. J., Johnson, R. L. & Liversedge, S. P. (2006) Raeding wrods with jubmled lettres: There is a cost. Psychological Science 17:192–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richardson, U., Aro, M. & Lyytinen, H. (2011) Prevention of reading difficulties in highly transparent Finnish. In: Dyslexia across languages: Orthography and the brain–gene–behavior link, ed. McCardle, P., Miller, B., Lee, J. R. & Tzeng, O. J. L., pp. 62–75. Brookes.Google Scholar
Rueckl, J. G. (2010) Connectionism and the role of morphology in visual word recognition. The Mental Lexicon 5:371–400.Google Scholar
Rueckl, J. G. & Seidenberg, M. S. (2009) Computational modeling and the neural bases of reading and reading disorders. In: How children learn to read: Current issues and new directions in the integration of cognition, neurobiology and genetics of reading and dyslexia research and practice, ed. Pugh, K. & McCardle, P., pp. 101–34. Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E. & McClelland, J. L. (1982) An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 2. The contextual enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of the model. Psychological Review 89:60–94.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E. & McClelland, J. L. (1986) On learning the past tenses of English verbs. In: Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition: Vol. 2. Psychological and biological models, ed. McClelland, J. L., Rumelhart, D. E. & the PDP Research Group, pp. 216–71. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N. & Newport, E. L. (1996) Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science 274:1926–28.Google Scholar
Schoonbaert, S. & Grainger, J. (2004) Letter position coding in printed word perception: Effects of repeated and transposed letters. Language and Cognitive Processes 19:333–67.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S. & McClelland, J. L. (1989) A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review 96:523–68.Google Scholar
Seki, A. (2011) Functional MRI studies on Japanese orthographies: Studies in reading development and reading difficulties. In: Dyslexia across languages: Orthography and the brain-gene-behavior link, ed. McCardle, P., Miller, B., Lee, J. R. & Tzeng, O. J. L., pp. 117–32. Brookes.Google Scholar
Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M. & Erskine, J. M. (2003) Foundation of literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology 94:143–74.Google Scholar
Shallice, T. & Warrington, E. K. (1977) The possible role of selective attention in acquired dyslexia. Neuropsychologia 15:31–41.Google Scholar
Shamir, O., Sabato, S. & Tishby, N. (2009) Learning and generalization with the information bottleneck. Theoretical Computer Science 410:2696–711.Google Scholar
Share, D. L. (2008a) On the Anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: The perils of overreliance on an “outlier” orthography. Psychological Bulletin 134(4):584–615.Google Scholar
Shetreet, E. & Friedmann, N. (2011) Induced letter migrations between words and what they reveal about the orthographic-visual analyzer. Neuropsychologia 49:339–51.Google Scholar
Shillcock, R., Ellison, T. M. & Monaghan, P. (2000) Eye-fixation behavior, lexical storage, and visual word recognition in a split processing model. Psychological Review 107:824–51.Google Scholar
Shimron, J. (2006) Reading Hebrew: The language and the psychology of reading it. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tishby, N., Pereira, F. C. & Bialek, W. (1999) The information bottleneck method. In: Proceedings of the 37th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control and Computing, Monticello, IL, September 1999, ed. Hajek, B. & Sreenivas, R. S., pp. 368–77. University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Tishby, N. & Polani, D. (2010) Information theory of decisions and actions. In: Perception-reason-action cycle: Models, algorithms and systems, ed. Cutsuridis, V., Hussain, A. & Taylor, J. G., pp. 601–36. Springer.Google Scholar
Treiman, R., Mullennix, J., Bijeljac-Babic, R. & Richmond-Welty, E. D. (1995) The special role of rimes in the description use and acquisition of English orthography. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 124:107–36.Google Scholar
Van Assche, E., & Grainger, J. (2006) A study of relative-position priming with superset primes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 32:399–415.Google Scholar
Velan, H. & Frost, R. (2007) Cambridge University vs. Hebrew University: The impact of letter transposition on reading English and Hebrew. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 14(5):913–18.Google Scholar
Velan, H. & Frost, R. (2009) Letter-transposition effects are not universal: The impact of transposing letters in Hebrew. Journal of Memory and Language 61:285–320.Google Scholar
Velan, H. & Frost, R. (2011) Words with and without internal structure: What determines the nature of orthographic and morphological processing? Cognition 118:141–56.Google Scholar
Velan, H., Frost, R., Deutsch, A. & Plaut, D. (2005) The processing of root morphemes in Hebrew: Contrasting localist and distributed accounts. Language and Cognitive Processes 29:169–206.Google Scholar
Wang, F., Tsai, Y. & Wang, W. S.-Y. (2009) Chinese literacy. In: Cambridge handbook on literacy, ed. Olson, D. & Torrance, N., pp. 386–417. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wang, W. S.-Y. (1981) Language structure and optimal orthography. In: Perception of print: Reading research in experimental psychology, ed. Tzeng, O. J. L. & Singer, H., pp. 223–36. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Whitney, C. (2001) How the brain encodes the order of letters in a printed word: The SERIOL model and selective literature review. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 8(2):221–43.Google Scholar
Whitney, C. (2008) Supporting the serial in the SERIOL model. Language and Cognitive Processes 23(6):824–65.Google Scholar
Whitney, C. & Cornelissen, P. (2005) Letter-position encoding and dyslexia. Journal of Research in Reading 28(3):274–301.Google Scholar
Whitney, C. & Cornelissen, P. (2008) SERIOL reading. Language and Cognitive Processes 23(1):143–64. doi:10.1080/01690960701579771.Google Scholar
Wydell, T. N. & Kondo, T. (2003) Phonological deficit and the reliance on orthographic approximation for reading: A follow-up study on an English–Japanese bilingual with monolingual dyslexia. Journal of Research in Reading 26:33–48.Google Scholar
Yamada, J. & Banks, A. (1994) Evidence for and characteristics of dyslexia among Japanese children. Annals of Dyslexia 44:105–19.Google Scholar
Ziegler, J. C., Bertrand, D., Tóth, D., Csépe, V., Reis, A., Faísca, L., Saine, N., Lyytinen, H., Vaessen, A. & Blomert, L. (2010) Orthographic depth and its impact on universal predictors of reading: A cross-language investigation. Psychological Science 21(4):551–59.Google Scholar
Ziegler, J. C. & Goswami, U. (2005) Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin 131:3–29.Google Scholar
Zorzi, M., Houghton, G. & Butterworth, B. (1998) Two routes or one in reading aloud? A connectionist dual-process model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 24:1131–61.Google Scholar