Advertisement

Individual differences in reading: Separable effects of reading experience and processing skill

  • Peter C. GordonEmail author
  • Mariah Moore
  • Wonil Choi
  • Renske S. Hoedemaker
  • Matthew W. Lowder
Article

Abstract

A large-scale eye-tracking study examined individual variability in measures of word recognition during reading among 546 college students, focusing on two established individual-differences measures: the Author Recognition Test (ART) and Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN). ART and RAN were only slightly correlated, suggesting that the two tasks reflect independent cognitive abilities in this large sample of participants. Further, individual variability in ART and RAN scores were related to distinct facets of word-recognition processes. Higher ART scores were associated with increased skipping rates, shorter gaze duration, and reduced effects of word frequency on gaze duration, suggesting that this measure reflects efficiency of basic processes of word recognition during reading. In contrast, faster times on RAN were associated with enhanced foveal-on-parafoveal effects, fewer first-pass regressions, and shorter second-pass reading times, suggesting that this measure reflects efficient coordination of perceptual-motor and attentional processing during reading. These results demonstrate that ART and RAN tasks make independent contributions to predicting variability in word-recognition processes during reading.

Keywords

Reading Individual differences Eye movements ART RAN 

Notes

References

  1. Acheson, D. J., Wells, J. B., & MacDonald, M. C. (2008). New and updated tests of print exposure and reading abilities in college students. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 278–289.PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnell, K. M., Joanisse, M. F., Klein, R. M., Busseri, M. A., & Tannock, R. (2009). Decomposing the relation between rapid automatized naming (RAN) and reading ability. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 173–184.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashby, J., Rayner, K., & Clifton, C., Jr. (2005). Eye movements of highly skilled and average readers: Differential effects of frequency and predictability. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 1065–1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beech, J. R. (2002). Individual differences in mature readers in reading, spelling, and grapheme-phoneme conversion. Current Psychology, 21, 121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brysbaert, M., Drieghe, D., & Vitu, F. (2005). Word skipping: Implications for theories of eye movement control in reading. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Cognitive processes in eye guidance (pp. 53–77). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American-English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 977–990.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brysbaert, M., & Vitu, F. (1998). Word skipping: Implications for theories of eye movement control in reading. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 125–148). Oxford, England: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buswell, G. T. (1921). The relationship between eye-perception and voice-response in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12, 217–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chateau, D., & Jared, D. (2000). Exposure to print and word recognition processes. Memory & Cognition, 28, 143–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Choi, W., Lowder, M. W., Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (2015). Individual differences in the perceptual span during reading: Evidence from the moving window technique. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77, 2463–2475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clifton, C., Jr., Staub, A., & Rayner, K. (2007). Eye movements in reading words and sentences. In R. P. G. van Gompel, M. H. Fischer, W. S. Murray, & R. L. Hill (Eds.), Eye movements: A window on mind and brain (pp. 341–371). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Common Data Set 2010–11. (2011). Retrieved from http://oira.unc.edu/files/2012/03/cds_2010_2011.pdf
  13. Denckla, M. B., & Rudel, R. (1974). Rapid “automatized” naming of pictured objects, colors, letters and numbers by normal children. Cortex, 10, 186–202.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Engbert, R., Nuthmann, A., Richter, E. M., & Kliegl, R. (2005). SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychological Review, 112, 777–813.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Felton, R. H., Naylor, C. E., & Wood, F. B. (1990). Neuropsychological profile of adult dyslexics. Brain and Language, 39, 485–497.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Gordon, P. C., & Hoedemaker, R. S. (2016). Effective scheduling of looking and talking during rapid automatized naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42, 742–760.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Gordon, P. C., Islam, A. T., & Wright, H. H. (2019). Rapid automatized naming (RAN): Effects of aging on a predictor of reading skill. Manuscript under review.Google Scholar
  20. Hall, V. C., Chiarello, K. S., & Edmonson, B. (1996). Deciding where knowledge comes from depends on where you look. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 305–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Henderson, J. M., & Ferreira, F. (1993). Eye movement control during reading: Fixation measures reflect foveal but not parafoveal processing difficulty. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 201–221.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Inhoff, A. W., & Rayner, K. (1986). Parafoveal word processing during eye fixations in reading: Effects of word frequency. Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 431–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kane, M. J., Meier, M. E., Smeekens, B. A., Gross, G. M., Chun, C. A., Silvia, P. J., & Kwapil, T. R. (2016). Individual differences in the executive control of attention, memory, and thought, and their associations with schizotypy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(8), 1017–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kennedy, A., & Pynte, J. (2005). Parafoveal-on-foveal effects in normal reading. Vision Research, 45, 153–168.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Kukona, A., Braze, D., Johns, C. L., Mencl, W. E., Van Dyke, J. A., Magnuson, J. S., . . . Tabor, W. (2016). The real-time prediction and inhibition of linguistic outcomes: Effects of language and literacy skill. Acta Psychologica, 171, 72–84.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kuperman, V., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2011). Effects of individual differences in verbal skills on eye-movement patterns during sentence reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 42–73.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levin, H., & Addis, A. B. (1979). The eye-voice span. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lewellen, M. J., Goldinger, S. D., Pisoni, D. B., & Greene, B. G. (1993). Lexical familiarity and processing efficiency: Individual differences in naming, lexical decision, and semantic categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 316–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lonigan, C., Schatschneider, C., & Westberg, L. (2008). Identification of children’s skills and abilities linked to later outcomes in reading, writing, and spelling. In Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel (pp. 55–106) Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.Google Scholar
  31. Lowder, M. W., Choi, W., & Gordon, P. C. (2013). Word recognition during reading: The interaction between lexical repetition and frequency. Memory & Cognition, 41, 738–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lowder, M. W., & Gordon, P. C. (2017). Print exposure modulates the effects of repetition priming during sentence reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 1935–1942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martin-Chang, S. L., & Gould, O. N. (2008). Revisiting print exposure: Exploring differential links to vocabulary, comprehension and reading rate. Journal of Research in Reading, 31, 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Matsuki, K., Kuperman V., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2016). The Random Forests statistical technique: An examination of its value for the study of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 20(1), 20–33.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McVay, J. C., & Kane, M. J. (2012). Why does working memory capacity predict variation in reading comprehension? On the influence of mind wandering and executive attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(2), 302–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mol, S. E., & Bus, A. G. (2011). To read or not to read: A meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 267–296.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Moore, M., & Gordon, P. C. (2015). Reading ability and print exposure: Item response theory analysis of the Author Recognition Test. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 1095–1109.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Pan, J., Yan, M., Laubrock, J., Shu, H., & Kliegl, R. (2013). Eye-voice span during rapid automatized naming of digits and dice in Chinese normal and dyslexic children. Developmental Science, 16, 967–979.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Perfetti, C. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Perfetti, C. A., Finger, E., & Hogaboam, T. (1978). Sources of vocalization latency differences between skilled and less skilled young readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 730–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pollatsek, A., Reichle, E. D., & Rayner, K. (2006). Tests of the EZ reader model: Exploring the interface between cognition and eye-movement control. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 1–56.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Protopapas, A., Altani, A., & Georgiou, G. K. (2013). Development of serial processing in reading and rapid naming. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116, 914–929.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457–1506.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Rayner, K., Chace, K. H., Slattery, T. J., & Ashby, J. (2006). Eye movements as reflections of comprehension processes in reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 241–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reilly, R. G., & Radach, R. (2006). Some empirical tests of an interactive activation model of eye movement control in reading. Cognitive Systems Research, 7, 34–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. SAS Institute Inc. (2016). Base SAS® 9.4 procedures guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
  51. Sears, C. R., Campbell, C. R., & Lupker, S. J. (2006). Is there a neighborhood frequency effect in English? Evidence from reading and lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 1040–1062.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Stanovich, K. E. (1981). Relationships between word decoding speed, general name-retrieval ability, and reading progress in first-grade children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 809–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stanovich, K. E., & Cunningham, A.E. (1992). Studying the consequences of literacy within a literate society: The cognitive correlates of print exposure. Memory & Cognition, 20, 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stanovich, K. E., & West R. F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 402–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Harrison, M. R. (1995). Knowledge growth and maintenance across the life span: The role of print exposure. Developmental Psychology, 31, 811–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Swanson, H. L., Trainin, G., Necoechea, D. M., & Hammill, D. D. (2003). Rapid naming, phonological awareness, and reading: A meta-analysis of the correlation evidence. Review of Educational Research, 73, 407–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vitu, F., McConkie, G. W., & Zola, D. (1998). About regressive saccades in reading and their relation to word identification. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 101–124). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. von der Malsburg, T., & Angele, B. (2017). False positives and other statistical errors in standard analyses of eye movements in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 119–133.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Comprehensive test of phonological processing: CTOPP. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
  60. White, S. J. (2008). Eye movement control during reading: Effects of word frequency and orthographic familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 205–223.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. White, S. J., Rayner, K., & Liversedge, S. P. (2005). The influence of parafoveal word length and contextual constraint on fixation durations and word skipping in reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 466–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wolf, M. (1991). Naming speed and reading: The contribution of the cognitive neurosciences. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter C. Gordon
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mariah Moore
    • 2
  • Wonil Choi
    • 3
  • Renske S. Hoedemaker
    • 1
  • Matthew W. Lowder
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Psychology, CB#3270University of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  3. 3.Division of Liberal Arts and SciencesGIST CollegeGwangjuSouth Korea
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyUniversity of RichmondRichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations