Reading skills andchallenged phoneme perception
Cecile Kuijpers, Louis ten Bosch, Renske Schilte
Radboud Universiteit NijmegenPedagogische Wetenschappen en OnderwijskundeCLST/Dept Linguistics
1
Introduction
• Reading disability, or dyslexia, is the most common learning disability
• Adult dyslexics- read more slowly than non-dyslexics- problems for nonsense word reading (non-lexical, phonological decoding) - problems at spelling
• Dyslexia and IQ are not related
2
Introduction
• Dyslexia (broad term): a learning disability that impairs a person's fluency in being able to read- can manifest itself as a difficulty with phonological awareness, phonological
decoding, orthographic coding, auditory short-term memory, or rapid naming.
• Dyslexia is separate and distinct from reading difficulties resulting from other causes:- non-neurological deficiency with vision or hearing- poor or inadequate reading instruction
• Estimated 5 to 10 percent of the population
3
Aim of this study
• To investigate
whether difficulty to identify phonemes in speech is related to difficulty to acquire reading skills
whether phonological representations are deficient
4
METHOD
• 114 students• Grade 4 / 5 / 6 (9- to 12-y-old)• 55 male, 59 female• 100% letter knowledge
• School results and timed reading tests• One-Minute-test (words), de Klepel (pseudowords)• Severe reading problem, reading problem, normal readers,
good readers
5
Test Mean SSEMT 3,63 ss < 7
16severe
problemKlepel 4,81 ss < 7EMT 5,28 ss <7
22problem
Klepel 7,71 ss ≥ 7EMT 7,71 ss ≥ 7Klepel 5,28 ss <7EMT 10,92 ss ≥ 7
60 normalKlepel 11,00 ss ≥ 7EMT ss ≥12 16 goodKlepel ss ≥12
Task• Phoneme identification: two-alternatives forced choice
- combined with grapheme presentation
• 4 vowels (a,o,e,u), 16 consonants (p,t,k,b,d,f,s,v,z,w,r,l,j,w,m,n)• 64 auditory stimuli VCV (e.g. /aba/, /utu/, /efe/, /ono/)• Speech-shaped noise (Stuart Rosen): 3 conditions
a. no noise (>80 dB SNR) b. noise (6 dB SNR) c. noise (3 dB SNR)
• Trained speaker
• Close pair (e.g. b-p) or distant pair (e.g. b-r)• Close: 1.04 artic. features vs. distant: 3.26 artic. features
6
experiment msempty screen 1000+ beep 150+ silence 400+ auditory stimulus 1000response 2000+ silence 500total 5050
7
Graphemes(target - close/distant alternative) Keyboard [c] [m]
Design (each subject)
• 6 blocks of 30 random stimuli (180 trials)
• equal number of left–right position target letter
• equal number of close and distant alternatives
• equal number of stimuli with noise level 0,1,2
• two training sessions (feedback correct/incorrect)
f s
8
f s
9
f s
10
k j
11
k j
12
k j
13
ACCURACY RT
N. S
accu
racy
(%
)
Accuracy RT
main effect p<.001 main effect p<.001
0.97-0.91-0.87 686-744-
764
NOISE
RT
(ms)
ACCURACY RT
N. S
accu
racy
(%
)
Accuracy RT
main effect p<.001 main effect p<.001
0. 9 4 - 0.89 7 2 5 - 739
Alternative (distant-close)
RT
(ms)
RT (
ms)
ACCURACYInteraction Noise * Alternative
Accuracy RT
Accu
racy
(%
)
Conclusions
• Noise hampers correct identification- in noise slower and less accurate response, for all groups- poor readers suffer most (accuracy)
• More errors in case of close alternatives as compared to distant- increases with noise- no difference between groups
• Children with (severe) reading problems are slower in their response than normal and good (independent of noise level)
• Some weaknesses:- 6-graders were primarily normal
17
ACCURACY RT
N. S
READING GROUP
Accuracy RT
n.s. p<.010.94-0.92-0.91-0.90 822-814-689-692