Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T15:27:02.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Parafoveal processing of letters and letter-like forms in prereaders growing up in a left-to-right or a right-to-left writing convention

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2015

ANNA C. BOTH-DE VRIES ,
MARIA T. DE JONG ,
SHELLEY SHAUL  and
ADRIANA G. BUS
ANNA C. BOTH-DE VRIES
Affiliation:
Leiden University, Department of Education and Child Studies
MARIA T. DE JONG
Affiliation:
Leiden University, Department of Education and Child Studies, and Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition (LIBC), Leiden University
SHELLEY SHAUL
Affiliation:
Edmond J. Safra Brain Research Center for the Study of Learning Disabilities, Department of Learning Disabilities, University of Haifa
ADRIANA G. BUS*
Affiliation:
Leiden University, Department of Education and Child Studies, and Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition (LIBC), Leiden University
*
*Address for correspondence: Adriana G. Bus, Leiden University, Department of Education and Child Studies, PO Box 9555, 2300 RB, Leiden, The Netherlands. e-mail: [email protected]; tel +31715273881.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

abstract

The aim of this study was to test that the ability to obtain information about more than one letter at a glance develops prior to conventional reading. This study included 55 Dutch-speaking prereaders (mean age 63.56 months, SD = 6.55) and 45 Hebrew-speaking prereaders (mean age = 66.71 months, SD = 8.35). In a perceptual span task, one letter was projected in the fovea, the other to the right or to the left, at a distance of 4 or 6 letters from the center letter. A second perceptual span task included letter-like forms instead of letters. Eye-tracking was used to control whether children fixated on the center letter or letter-like form during the task. Obtaining information about two letters/forms was easier when the parafoveally projected letter/form was projected to the right for both Hebrew and Dutch children. Hemispheric dominance and not the dominant reading direction (right to left in Hebrew and left to right in Dutch) may explain this preference for right, which may mean that left-to-right reading is easier to learn than right-to-left reading. We did find, nevertheless, some evidence that reading direction in the dominant orthography affected how children divided attention over letters.

Keywords

prereadersperceptual span taskparafoveal processingreading directionhemispheric dominance
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , December 2016 , pp. 566 - 586
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2015 

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

Aghababian, V., & Nazir, T. A. (2000). Developing normal reading skills: aspects of the visual processes underlying word recognition. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 76, 123–150.Google Scholar
Biemiller, A. (1970). The development of the use of graphic and contextual information as children learn to read. Reading Research Quarterly, 6, 75–96.Google Scholar
Both-de Vries, A. C., & Bus, A. G. (2014). Visual processing of pictures and letters in alphabet books and the implications for letter learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39, 156–163.Google Scholar
Cabeza, R., & Nyberg, L. (2000). Imaging cognition II: an empirical review of 275 PET and fMRI Studies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 1–47.Google Scholar
Clay, M. M. (1979). Reading: the patterning of complex behaviour. Auckland: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Dehaene, S. (2009). Reading in the brain: the new science of how we read. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Dehaene, S. (2013). Inside the letterbox: how literacy transforms the human brain. Paper presented at the Cerebrum: the Dana forum on brain science, June.Google Scholar
Dehaene, S., & Cohen, L. (2011). The unique role of the visual word form area in reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 254–262.Google Scholar
Deutsch, A., Frost, R., Pelleg, S., Pollastek, A., & Rayner, K. (2003). Early morphological effects in reading: evidence from parafoveal preview benefit in Hebrew. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 415–422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deutsch, A., & Rayner, K. (1999). Initial fixation location effects in reading Hebrew words. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 393–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 167–188.Google Scholar
Evans, M. A., & Saint-Aubin, J. (2005). What children are looking at during shared storybook reading – evidence from eye movement monitoring. Psychological Science, 16, 913–920.Google Scholar
Farid, M., & Grainger, J. (1996). How initial fixation position influences visual word recognition: a comparison of French and Arabic. Brain and Language, 53, 351–368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faust, M., Kravetz, S., & Babkoff, H. (1993). Hemispheric specialization or reading habits: evidence from lexical decision research with Hebrew words and sentences. Brain and Language, 44, 254–263.Google Scholar
Greene, H. H., Pollatsek, A., Masserang, K., Ju Lee, Y., & Rayner, K. (2010). Directional processing within the perceptual span during visual target localization. Vision Research, 50, 1274–1282.Google Scholar
Häikiö, T., Bertram, R., Hyönä, J., & Niemi, P. (2009). Development of the letter identity span in reading: evidence from the eye movement moving window paradigm. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 102, 167–181.Google Scholar
Henderson, J. M., & Ferreira, F. (1990). Effects of foveal processing difficulty on the perceptual span in reading: implications for attention and eye movement control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 417–429.Google ScholarPubMed
Heron, W. (1957). Perception as a function of retinal locus and attention. American Journal of Psychology, 70, 38–48.Google Scholar
Jordan, T., Almabruk, A. A., Gadalla, E., McGowan, V., White, S., Abedipour, L., & Paterson, K. B. (2014). Reading direction and the central perceptual span: evidence from Arabic and English. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 505–511.Google Scholar
Klingberg, T. (2013). The learning brain: memory and brain development in children. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, I., Ravid, D., & Rapaport, S. (2001). Morphology and spelling among Hebrew-speaking children: from kindergarten to first grade. Journal of Child Language, 28, 741–772.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Linkersdörfer, J., Jurcoane, A., Lindberg, S., Kaiser, J., Hasselhorn, M., Fiebach, C. J., & Lonnemann, J. (2014). The association between gray matter volume and reading proficiency: a longitudinal study of beginning readers. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27, 308–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchbanks, G., & Levin, H. (1965). Cues by which children recognize words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 57–61.Google Scholar
McConkie, G., & Rayner, K. (1975). The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation in reading. Perception & Psychophysics, 17, 578–586.Google Scholar
Mishkin, M., & Forgays, D. G. (1952). Word recognition as a function of retinal locus. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43, 43–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nazir, T., Heller, D., & Sussmann, C. (1992). Letter visibility and word recognition: the optimal viewing position in printed words. Perception & Psychophysics, 52, 315–328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Regan, J. K., & Jacobs, A. M. (1992). Optimal viewing position effect in word recognition: a challenge to current theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 185–197.Google Scholar
Paterson, K. B., McGowan, V. A., White, S. J., Malik, S., Abedipour, L., & Jordan, T. R. (2014). Reading direction and the central perceptual span in Urdu and English. PLoS ONE, 9, 1–8.Google Scholar
Pelli, D. G., Burns, C. W., Farell, B., & Moore-Page, D. C. (2006). Feature detection and letter identification. Vision Research, 46, 4646–4674.Google Scholar
Pollatsek, A., Bolozky, S., Well, A. D., & Rayner, K. (1981). Asymmetries in the perceptual span for Israeli readers. Brain and Language, 14, 174–180.Google Scholar
Rayner, K. (1985). The role of eye movements in learning to read and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 6, 53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, K. (1986). Eye movements and the perceptual span in beginning and skilled readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41, 211–236.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., & Bertera, J. H. (1979). Reading without a fovea. Science, 206, 468–469.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, 192–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savage, R., Stuart, M., & Hill, V. (2001). The role of scaffolding errors in reading development: evidence from a longitudinal and a correlational study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tobii Studio (2010). [Apparatus and software (version 2.2.6)] Danderys: Tobii Technology.Google Scholar
Vitu, F., McConkie, G. W., Kerr, P., & O’Regan, J. K. (2001). Fixation location effects on fixation durations during reading: an inverted optimal viewing position effect. Vision Research, 41, 3513–3533.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, L. J. (1988). Tunnel vision or general interference? Cognitive load and attentional bias are both important. American Journal of Psychology, 2, 171–191.Google Scholar