reading skills and challenged phoneme perception cecile kuijpers, louis ten bosch, renske schilte...
TRANSCRIPT
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