Explore the vast range of titles available.

Very few published studies have reported auditory speech perception in Hindi children with pre-lingual hearing loss. The study is aimed at comparing the speech perception skills of Hindi speaking children with pre-lingual severe to profound hearing loss using hearing aids and cochlear implants. Forty-three 6 to 8-year old children were included as participants, of which 22 were bilateral behind-the-ear hearing aid (HA) users and 21 were unilateral cochlear implant (CI) users. Speech perception was assessed through a forced-choice, picture-pointing task using recorded stimuli presented at 70 dB HL in the sound field. The skills assessed include: (a) pattern perception, (b) bisyllabic word identification, (c) monosyllabic word identification, (d) sentence identification and (e) minimal pair identification. Children using CI consistently performed significantly better than those with HA on all tasks. For the skills assessed, best performance was seen in pattern perception and poorest performance was seen in monosyllabic word identification. One participant from the CI group obtained ceiling scores for pattern perception and bisyllabic word identification. There was no statistically significant difference in the performance of 6 to 7 and 7 to 8-year-old children for any of the tasks. Children fitted with CI have better access to the cues important for perception of speech and hence perform consistently better than those using hearing aids. Recorded speech perception test can be used with children using cochlear implants and hearing aids.

One of the most fundamental distinctions in cognitive psychology is between processing that is \"controlled\" and processing that is \"automatic.\" The widely held automatic processing account of visual word identification asserts that, among other characteristics, the presentation of a well-formed letter string triggers sublexical, lexical, and semantic activation in the absence of any intention to do so. Instead, the role of intention is seen as independent of stimulus identification and as restricted to selection for action using the products of identification (e.g., braking in response to a sign saying \"BRIDGE OUT\"). We consider four paradigms with respect to the role of an intention-defined here as a \"task set\" indicating how to perform in the current situation-when identifying single well-formed letter strings. Contrary to the received automaticity view, the literature regarding each of these paradigms demonstrates that the relation between an intention and stimulus identification is constrained in multiple ways, many of which are not well understood at present. One thing is clear: There is no simple relation between an intention, in the form of a task set, and stimulus identification. Automatic processing of words, if this indeed ever occurs, certainly is not a system default. L'une des distinctions les plus fondamentales en psychologie cognitive est celle entre le traitement « contrôlé » et le traitement « automatique ». Le concept du traitement automatique de l'identification visuelle des mots, largement répandu, affirme que, parmi d'autres caractéristiques, la présentation d'une chaîne de lettres bien formée déclenche une activation sublexicale, lexicale et sémantique en l'absence de toute intention de le faire. Au contraire, le rôle de l'intention est considéré comme indépendant de l'identification du stimulus et limité à la sélection d'une action utilisant les produits de l'identification (par exemple, freiner en apercevant un panneau indiquant « PONT EN RÉFECTION »). Nous examinons quatre paradigmes concernant le rôle d'une intention - définie ici comme un « ensemble de tâches » indiquant comment agir dans la situation actuelle - lors de l'identification de chaînes de lettres simples et bien formées. Contrairement à l'idée reçue de l'automaticité, la littérature concernant chacun de ces paradigmes démontre que la relation entre une intention et l'identification d'un stimulus est limitée de multiples façons, dont beaucoup ne sont pas bien comprises à l'heure actuelle. Une chose est claire : il n'existe pas de relation simple entre une intention, sous la forme d'un ensemble de tâches, et l'identification du stimulus. Le traitement automatique des mots, s'il a lieu, n'est certainement pas un défaut du système. Public Significance Statement With the extensive practice that readers have in processing words, many theorists argue that this skill becomes \"automatic,\" in the sense of occurring necessarily and without intention. In this article, we argue that there is considerable evidence against the reading of individual words being \"automatic\" in that particular sense. In many situations, intention demonstrably matters. We examine several frequently studied tasks that involve single words (and nonwords, like \"mantiness\") and show that the context in which they occur is important for understanding how such stimuli are processed. The \"task set\" that people adopt-their approach to the particular situation-and when they adopt that set both play pivotal roles in how words are processed. Consequently, the concept of automaticity as typically defined is too broad to capture the many subtleties involved in the skill of visual word recognition.

Beginning readers have been shown to be sensitive to the meaning of embedded neighbors (e.g., CROW in CROWN). Moreover, developing readers are sensitive to the morphological structure of words (TEACH-ER). However, the interaction between orthographic and morphological processes in meaning activation during reading is not well established. What determines semantic access to orthographically embedded words? What is the role of suffixes in this process? And how does this change throughout development? To address these questions, we asked 80 Italian elementary school children (third, fourth, and fifth grade) to make category decisions on words (e.g., is CARROT a type of food?). Critically, some target words for no-answers (e.g., is CORNER a type of food?) contained category-congruent embedded stems (i.e., CORN). To gauge the role of morphology in this process, half of the embedded stems were accompanied by a pseudosuffix (CORN-ER) and half by a non-morphological ending (PEA-CE). Results revealed that words were harder to reject as members of a category when the embedded stem was category-congruent. This effect held both with and without a pseudosuffix, but was larger for pseudosuffixed words in the error rates. These results suggest that orthographic stems are activated and activation is fed forward to the semantic level regardless of morphological structure, followed by a decision-making process that might strategically use suffix-like endings.

Reading is a highly complex skill that is prerequisite to success in many societies in which a great deal of information is communicated in written form. Since the 1970s, much has been learned about the reading process from research by cognitive psychologists. This book summarizes that important work and puts it into a coherent framework. The book’s central theme is how readers go about extracting information from the printed page and comprehending the text. Like its predecessor, this thoroughly updated 2nd Edition encompasses all aspects of the psychology of reading with chapters on writing systems, word recognition, the work of the eyes during reading, inner speech, sentence processing, discourse processing, learning to read, dyslexia, individual differences and speed reading. Psychology of Reading, 2 nd Edition , is essential reading for undergraduates, graduates, and researchers in cognitive psychology and could be used as a core textbook on courses on the psychology of reading and related topics. In addition, the clear writing style makes the book accessible to people without a background in psychology but who have a personal or professional interest in the process of reading. Keith Rayner is the Atkinson Professor of Psychology at the University of California, San Diego and Emeritus Distinguished University Professor at the University of Massachusetts.　 He has published widely on topics related to reading, eye movements, and language processing. Alexander Pollatsek is Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Research Professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.　 His primary research interests are in reading, word recognition, scene perception, and driving behavior.　 He has published widely in each area. Jane Ashby is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Central Michigan University. Her primary interests are in skilled reading, phonological processing, dyslexia, and reading development. Charles Clifton, Jr is Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Research Professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.　 He is primarily interested in psycholinguistics and has published numerous papers dealing with linguistic processing, parsing, and syntactic ambiguity. Preface. Part 1. Background Information. 1. Introduction and Preliminary Information. 2. Writing Systems. 3. Word Perception I: Some Basic Issues and Methods. Part 2. Skilled Reading of Text. 4. The Work of the Eyes. 5. Word Perception II: Word Identification in Text. 6. A Model of Eye Movements in Reading. Part 3. Understanding Text. 7. Inner Speech. 8. Words and Sentences. 9. Comprehension of Discourse. Part 4. Beginning Reading, Reading Disability, Individual Differences. 10. Stages of Reading Development. 11. Learning to Read. 12. Reading Disorders. 13. Speed Reading, Proofreading, and Individual Differences. 14. Overview. \"I don’t think it’s possible to overstate the importance of this book. It’s written by some of the very best-known and respected researchers in the field who, to a very large degree, have defined the field itself. In short, reading research would not have been the same without these authors, and to the present day they’re still amongst the most prominent scholars in the world.\" -Steven Frisson, Ph.D., University of Birmingham, UK \"I absolutely loved reading this book. The level of detail and analysis provided in several of the chapters was exceptional. In fact, given the attention to detail, and the continual use of presenting data followed by argument/criticism to build a position, results in a book that will be valuable at many levels.\" -Edward O’Brien, Ph.D., University of New Hampshire, US \"The original Psychology of Reading by Rayner and Pollatsek - of which this current book is a thoroughly revised and updated version - has often been described as a seminal book. Only too frequently this term is used to describe books which have received considerable attention in the field but in hindsight fail to meet the criterion for using that specific, powerful epithet . . . The current book is a rightful heir to the throne of the [first edition].\" -Denis Drieghe, Ph.D., University of Southampton, UK

Identifying words which may cause difficulty for a reader is an essential step in most lexical text simplification systems prior to lexical substitution and can also be used for assessing the readability of a text. This task is commonly referred to as complex word identification (CWI) and is often modelled as a supervised classification problem. For training such systems, annotated datasets in which words and sometimes multi-word expressions are labelled regarding complexity are required. In this paper we analyze previous work carried out in this task and investigate the properties of CWI datasets for English. We develop a protocol for the annotation of lexical complexity and use this to annotate a new dataset, CompLex 2.0. We present experiments using both new and old datasets to investigate the nature of lexical complexity. We found that a Likert-scale annotation protocol provides an objective setting that is superior for identifying the complexity of words compared to a binary annotation protocol. We release a new dataset using our new protocol to promote the task of Lexical Complexity Prediction.

The standard view in cognition is that the identification of visually presented words, up to and including semantic activation, is automatic in various senses. The perspective favored here is that various kinds of attention are intimately involved in the identification of words. Some forms of attention are necessary, whereas others (i.e., executive attention) are recruited to optimize performance. We briefly review results from a variety of literatures that (a) support the latter perspective and (b) are difficult to reconcile with an automatic-processing account.

Identifying individual words is an essential part of the reading process that should occur first so that understanding the structural relations between words and comprehending the sentence as a whole may take place. Therefore, lexical processing (or word identification) has received much attention in the literature, with many researchers exploring the effects of different aspects of word representation (orthographic, phonological, and semantic information of words) in word identification. While the influence of many orthographic and phonological factors in normal reading are well researched and understood (Rayner, 1998, 2009), the effect of semantic characteristics of a word in its identification has received relatively less attention. A complete account of lexical processing during normal reading requires understanding the role of word meaning in lexical processing. Currently, little is understood about whether and how the meaning of an individual word is extracted during early stages of word identification. This article primarily focuses on how word meaning contributes to the process of word identification.

The current study examined statistically significant differences between struggling and adequate readers using a multicomponent model of reading comprehension in 796 sixth through eighth graders, with a primary focus on word reading and vocabulary. Path analyses and Wald tests were used to investigate the direct and indirect relations of word identification, vocabulary, silent reading efficiency, and inference-making on reading comprehension. Comparing struggling versus adequate comprehenders revealed statistically significant differences in path coefficients. In both groups, vocabulary had the largest total effect when considering its direct and indirect effects. Word identification was the strongest direct predictor for struggling comprehenders (β = .18 for struggling vs. β = − .03 for adequate), while vocabulary was the strongest predictor for adequate comprehenders (β = .40 for adequate vs. β = .14 for struggling). Findings reinforce (a) vocabulary knowledge plays a primary role in explaining individual differences in adolescent reading comprehension, (b) the need to differentiate intervention to address underlying difficulties of struggling readers, and (c) the relations of reading component skills (e.g., word reading and silent reading efficiency) to reading comprehension may be different based on reader proficiency.

Many studies have found that the orthographic neighborhood frequency (NF) effect plays a dominant role in word identification. Yet most research has been conducted on alphabetic languages rather than Chinese. We investigated the NF effect on Chinese character recognition in the context of lexical decision tasks. Experiment 1 tested the NF effect in simple characters, Experiment 2 tested the NF effect in compound characters. Results showed that targets with higher frequency neighbors had longer response latencies for both simple characters and compound characters, and that this inhibitory effect was more significant for low-frequency targets. The results overall imply there is an inhibitory NF effect existing in Chinese character recognition. The implications of the results are discussed with regard to character recognition.

Word‐level reading skills are foundational to reading comprehension. The correlation between isolated word‐level reading and reading comprehension is quite high. Reading fluency is also highly predictive of reading comprehension. This chapter focuses on the assessment of both isolated word reading and reading fluency. The obvious way to provide a correct response to an unfamiliar word on a word identification task is through phonic decoding. Most word identification tests consist of a graded word list, so any guessing is not based on context. Little needs to be said about the traditional word identification subtests because they are familiar to those doing educational evaluations. These tasks/subtests are standard on almost every achievement battery that assesses reading. One can define at least four functional types of fluency tasks: RAN (digits, letters, objects or colors); word‐level fluency (real words and nonsense words); sentence‐level fluency; and passage‐level fluency.