Nelson Denny Reading Test Raw Score 141 Grade Equivalent 18.1?

PLoS One. 2015; 10(three): e0119734.

Individual Differences in the Effect of Orthographic/Phonological Disharmonize on Rhyme and Spelling Decisions

Suzanne E. Welcome

Department of Psychology, University of Missouri—St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, The states of America,

Amanda C. Alton

Department of Psychology, University of Missouri—St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, Us,

Benjamin Xu, Bookish Editor

Received 2014 Sep 19; Accepted 2015 Feb one.

Supplementary Materials

S1 Appendix: Results from Experiment i participants who performed the rhyme task first. (Doctor)

GUID: 6748A651-9AE5-46D0-B6D8-F53723D8F0C1

S1 Table: Mean (standard deviation) performance across condition for seven participants dropped from Experiment 1. Accuracies are percentage correct and RTs are in ms.

(Physician)

GUID: 7E078997-4321-4B83-B200-8DAECCC3D34E

S2 Table: Associations (Pearson'southward r-values) between effects of conflict and cognitive operation including all participants from Experiment ane. Asterisks betoken relationships which are statistically meaning. * p < .05, ** p < .01

(Physician)

GUID: 354DAD57-79E1-4720-A7E6-C8DEC4E696F2

S3 Table: Hateful (standard deviation) performance across status for vi participants dropped from Experiment 2. Accuracies are percent correct and RTs are in ms.

(DOC)

GUID: 9AF58B47-E697-42AA-AF07-0AA2FAED3726

S4 Tabular array: Associations (Pearson's r-values) betwixt effects of conflict and cognitive functioning including all participants from Experiment 2. Asterisks indicate relationships which are statistically significant. * p < .05, ** p < .01

(DOC)

GUID: F77DA94E-F3D8-498F-8BCC-045F971BB216

Information Availability Statement

All relevant information are inside the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Abstract

In typical readers, orthographic knowledge has been shown to influence phonological decisions. In the present report, nosotros used visual rhyme and spelling tasks to investigate the interaction of orthographic and phonological information in adults with varying reading skill. Give-and-take pairs that shared both orthography and phonology (due east.grand., pharynx/boat), differed in both orthography and phonology (e.chiliad., snow/arm), shared just orthography (e.thousand., farm/warm), and shared but phonology (due east.k., vote/gunkhole) were visually presented to university students who varied in reading ability. For rhyme judgment, participants were slower and less accurate to accept rhyming pairs when words were spelled differently and to reject non-rhyming pairs when words were spelled similarly. Similarly, for spelling judgments, participants were slower and less accurate when indicating that word endings were spelled differently when words rhymed, and slower and less accurate when indicating that words were spelled similarly when words did non rhyme. Crucially, while these effects were clear at the group level, there were big individual differences in the extent to which participants were impacted by conflict. In ii carve up samples, reading skill was associated with the extent to which orthographic conflict impacted rhyme decisions such that individuals with better nonword reading performance were less impacted by orthographic conflict. Thus, university students with poorer reading skills may differ from their peers either in the reading strategies they use or in the caste to which they automatically access give-and-take form data. Understanding these relationships is important for understanding the roles that reading processes play in readers of different skill.

Introduction

In skilled readers, connections take been forged between a phonological (sound-based) organization and an orthographic (visually-based) system. These connections may hateful that literacy fundamentally changes the way in which language is processed. A number of studies have demonstrated that in skilled readers, orthographic information influences phonological decisions and recognition of spoken words e.g. [1, ii]. A classic finding is that the speed and accuracy of rhyme judgments can be impacted by word spelling, such that adult participants are faster to recognize that similarly spelled pairs (east.thousand. tie-pie) rhyme than rhymes that are spelled differently (east.g., rye-tie) [1]. This increment in response latency for pairs in which orthographic and phonological information conflict (incongruent discussion pairs) over congruent pairs has been demonstrated using both auditory and visual presentation of word pairs [3, 4].

Other paradigms have also been used to demonstrate that orthographic information influences auditory discussion processing. For instance, Ziegler and Ferrand [ii] demonstrated that auditory lexical decision times are impacted by consistency, such that inconsistent words, whose rimes can be spelled multiple ways (e.g., leap), were recognized more than slowly than consistent words, whose rimes tin only be spelled 1 way (e.g., duck). This outcome of consistency extends to semantic and gender categorization tasks, indicating that orthography influences many aspects of spoken word processing [5]. In a priming epitome, primes that shared both orthography and phonology with a target were more effective primes than those that shared phonology simply [6]. During a phoneme monitoring task, adults were faster to reply to a target phoneme when it was spelled typically than when information technology was spelled atypically [7]. Words with more orthographic neighbors show faster reaction times in a shadowing task [8].

There is mixed show regarding interactions between orthography and phonology in individuals with poor phonological decoding skills. Some evidence supports the view that orthographic processing is preserved in those with difficulties in phonological decoding. In individuals with dyslexia, orthographic processing is impacted less severely and persistently than phonological processing [ix]. As poor readers mature, their arrears in orthographic processing is reduced while their phonological deficit is increased (relative to normal-reading peers), suggesting that individuals with dyslexia are able to catch upwards in orthographic processing while falling behind in phonological processing [10]. Proficient and dyslexic developed readers showed a comparable effect of orthography on auditory rhyme judgments [11], suggesting that individuals with adequate reading experience, regardless of reading skill, bear witness similar influence of orthography when the task is metaphonological in nature, requiring explicit identification and analysis of speech sounds.

Other findings advise that individuals with poor phonological processing skills exhibit reduced access to orthographic data. Children with dyslexia showed less orthographic facilitation than typical reading groups in an auditory rhyme detection task [12]. Children with dyslexia also did not show a typical orthographic neighborhood effect [xiii], showing little benefit for the processing of words that share orthography with many other words. In an fMRI written report, children with reading disabilities failed to show reliable activation of the fusiform cortex during an auditory rhyming task [xiv]. The fusiform gyrus typically shows activation during visual or orthographic processing, and activation of this region in typically-reading children was taken equally prove for activation of orthographic information during an auditory task.

Notwithstanding, there are some reports that individuals with poor phonological skills bear witness enhanced, rather than reduced, furnishings of orthography. Some individuals with impaired phonological decoding skills were shown to excel at orthographic tasks [15, sixteen]. Among adolescents performing a visual rhyming task, individuals with dyslexia showed high error rates when phonological and orthographic data conflicted [17]. Adult literacy students, who read at grade levels 3 to 6, made more than errors than reading-level matched children on rhyming trials with different spelling [xviii], indicating that these participants might rely on spelling data to make rhyme decisions.

While the event of orthography on rhyme decisions and spoken linguistic communication processing is clear at a group level, it is less clear whether meaningful variation in this effect exists within the adult population. However, Dich [19] demonstrated a relationship betwixt an individual'due south spelling skill and the extent to which orthography impacts the recognition of spoken words. Individuals with stronger spelling skills tended to show larger effects of orthography on an auditory lexical conclusion task (a greater divergence between inconsistent and consequent words). A more complicated pattern of results was establish when comparison furnishings of orthography on phonological processing between typical readers and dyslexic adults [11]. During an auditory lexical decision task, consistency furnishings were related to reading skill, with improve readers showing a larger issue of consistency. This human relationship with reading skill was non observed for an auditory rhyme judgment chore. The authors attributed this design of results to the metaphonological nature of the rhyme job. Together, such findings advise that individual differences in reading and spelling ability may modulate the effect of orthography on phonological tasks.

In the present studies we used visual rhyme and spelling tasks to investigate the interaction of orthographic and phonological information in adults with varying reading skill. Prior studies have demonstrated effects of conflicting orthography on phonological judgments with both auditory and visual presentation of stimuli. Those studies have demonstrated an increase in response latency for orthographically different rhyme pairs over orthographically similar rhyme pairs using both visual and auditory word presentations [20, 21]. Upshot-related potential (ERP) data further advise that such effects are not fully dependent on modality. Consequent differences between not-rhyming and rhyming targets emerge nigh 300 ms after stimulus onset for both auditory [22] and visual [23] discussion pairs. Further, ERPs take revealed effects of conflicting orthography during rhyme decisions and spoken language processing with furnishings of orthography emerging during the same time window as furnishings of rhyme, using visual presentation [20, 21]. These findings make sense in calorie-free of the fact that in order to make a rhyme judgment, the phonological form of the word must exist accessed, regardless of the modality of presentation. Nonetheless, differences betwixt modalities exist in terms of the need for print-to-sound conversion and the saliency of the task-irrelevant information.

Nosotros were particularly interested in relationships with reading skill. Within the university population, at that place is considerable variability in reading skill, particularly the ability to read nonwords [24, 25]. Understanding the consequences of this variability in the adult population is important, equally readers with varying skill might engage different mechanisms during reading, and a full understanding of the behavioral and neural underpinnings of reading mechanisms must incorporate this variability. Specifically, adults with relatively poor phonological decoding skills may differ from other readers in orthographic processing [26, 27]. On this basis, we predicted that at that place would be a relationship between phonological decoding skill and the extent to which conflict between orthographic and phonological information impacted an individual such that individuals with worse nonword reading skill would be more than reliant on orthographic data, and thus more than sensitive to phonological conflict. Nearly previous studies exploring these questions primarily compared furnishings in dyslexic and typical-reading children. In this study, we investigated effects beyond the reading spectrum in adults, in whom reading processes are likely fully adult. For both rhyme and spelling tasks, it is possible for conflict to exist between orthographic and phonological data, and the apply of two tasks allows united states of america to investigate the upshot of this conflict on both phonological and orthographic decisions.

Experiment 1 Methods

Participants

Twoscore-three neurologically normal adults (38 female) took part in the study and were compensated with course credit. All were right-handed native speakers of English. The study had the approval of the Academy of Missouri—St Louis (UMSL) Institutional Review Board and written informed consent was obtained from all participants. Seven participants were removed considering their behavioral performance indicated imperfect understanding of the task (accuracy was below threescore% on 2 or more than experimental weather). See S1 Table: Mean (standard deviation) performance across condition for seven participants dropped from Experiment i. Annotation that major results are not changed past the inclusion of these participants with low accuracy (S2 Tabular array: Associations (Pearson's r-values) between effects of conflict and cognitive operation including all participants from Experiment 1). For the remaining 36 participants, scores on standardized measures of reading and nonverbal intelligence ranged from below average to well above average, reflecting the variability nowadays in the UMSL student body (Tabular array 1).

Table 1

Demographic characteristics of the sample for Experiment one (N = 36).

	Mean (SD)	Range
Age	22.3 (5.2)	18–42
Adult Reading History Questionnaire	0.29 (0.10)	0.x–0.52
TONI (Scaled Score)	97.eight (9.0)	85–124
TOWRE SWE (Scaled Score)	97.4 (10.8)	76–130
TOWRE PDE (Scaled Score)	100.8 (eleven.5)	67–127

Psychometric Measures

All participants completed standardized measures of intelligence and reading ability. Nonverbal intelligence was assessed with the Test of Nonverbal Intelligence-three, which uses moving-picture show stimuli to evaluate skill at recognizing logical sequences (TONI-3) [28]. The Sight Word Efficiency (SWE) and Phonemic Decoding Efficiency (PDE) subtests of the Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE) were used to assess timed reading of familiar words and pronounceable pseudowords, respectively [29]. Participants completed the Developed Reading History Questionnaire (ARHQ) [30], designed to investigate participants' childhood reading experiences and current attitudes. This questionnaire is designed to provide a cut-score (0.thirty) higher up which scores signal a history of reading disability. Using this cut-score, 17 participants would be classified equally having a positive history of reading disability. UMSL's undergraduate student body is somewhat nontraditional, with more than 50% transfer students and a hateful age of 26, and it might therefore not exist surprising that a relatively large portion of the sample experienced reading difficulty at some bespeak in the past. Despite the relatively loftier scores on this measure, none of the participants reported repeating grades due to bookish failure. Some items in the questionnaire did not seem applicable to the college population (e.1000., reading of newspapers given that many of the participants written report seeking news through other media), so we did non utilise a cut-score, and instead treated the score as a continuous mensurate.

In that location was a pregnant association between performance on the SWE and PDE subtests of the TOWRE, r(34) = .48, p < .005. However, nonverbal intelligence and scores on the ARHQ were not significantly correlated with each other, r(34) = −.xix, p > .10, or with either reading measure [TONI with SWE: r(34) = −.02, p > .10; TONI with PDE: r(34) = −.04, p > .10; ARHQ with SWE: r(34) = .twenty, p > .10; ARHQ with PDE: r(34) = −.20, p > .x]. One caption for the lack of significant associations betwixt self-reported reading history and current reading skill is that the ARHQ contains a mix of questions relating to current reading beliefs and past reading experiences. It is possible that participants obtained high scores on the self-report measure primarily as a result of academic difficulty during babyhood, and these early on experiences are only weakly related to adult operation.

Materials

All participants fabricated rhyme and spelling decisions on visually presented word pairs. In total, participants saw 80 pairs sharing both orthography and phonology (O+P+ pairs), 80 pairs sharing neither orthography nor phonology (O-P- pairs), 40 pairs sharing phonology but non orthography (O-P+ pairs), and 40 pairs sharing orthography only not phonology (O+P- pairs). Three pairs from each of 40 O-P-, O+P+, and O-P+ triplets (seek/boat, throat/boat, vote/gunkhole) and xl O-P-, O+P+, O+P- triplets (snow/arm, subcontract/arm, warm/arm) were presented to participants. In this manner, targets were preceded by words that varied in their human relationship to the target. Length, concreteness [31], familiarity [31], log frequency [32], number of orthographic neighbors [33], and bigram frequency [33] were equated as much equally possible for target words, orthographically related words, and orthographically unrelated words [ts (78) < 1.v, ps > .x] beyond conditions.

Process

Participants performed both a visual rhyme decision task and a visual spelling task, with job society counterbalanced across participants. All stimuli were presented in lowercase, black 18 point Arial font on a white background. Each trial began with a fixation cantankerous that flickered for 250 ms. On each trial, a visual word was presented for 500 ms, followed by an ISI of 500 ms, and presentation of a target word for 500 ms. Trials were separated by a i,000 ms inter-trial interval. Participants indicated their decision with a button printing. For the rhyme task, participants were instructed to indicate their rhyme/no rhyme decision with a push button press. For the spelling task, participants were asked to indicate whether the endings of the word pair were spelled similarly with a button printing. Participants used their index finger on the "1" key and their middle finger on the "two" cardinal to bespeak their response, with response mapping counterbalanced across participants. Before each task, 12 practice trials were administered. Each task was broken into 4 blocks of trials that lasted approximately 3–four minutes.

Experiment 1 Results

Overall Effects

A two (task) ten 2 (phonology) x 2 (orthography) ANOVA was conducted separately for accuracy and RT. For accuracy, a main effect of job was observed, F(i, 35) = iv.17, p < .05, with improve performance on the rhyme job. The main effects of phonology and orthography were non significant (Fs < iii). The interaction of task and phonology was significant, F(1, 35) = 33.vii, p < .001. For the rhyming chore, shared phonology led to higher accurateness (90.2% versus 85.9%), while for the spelling task, shared phonology led to less accuracy (81.4% versus 89.one%). The interaction of job and orthography was also significant, F(1, 35) = 26.2, p < .001. For the rhyming chore, shared orthography led to less accuracy than non-shared (85.5% versus ninety.vi%), while for the spelling job, shared orthography led to more than accuracy than non-shared (88.0% versus 82.5%). Thus, accurateness was higher for the rhyme task when items shared phonology and higher for the spelling task was items shared orthography. Crucially, phonology and orthography showed a meaning interaction, F(1, 35) = fourscore.92, p < .001. When phonology was shared, shared orthography led to more accuracy (91.three% versus 80.3%). When phonology differed, shared orthography led to less accuracy (82.ii% versus 92.8%). The chore x phonology 10 orthography interaction was not significant (F < 1).

For RT, a main result of task was observed, F(1, 35) = 25.8, p < .001, with faster responses to the spelling task. The main outcome of phonology was not significant (F < 1.6), but the main effect of orthography was, F(1, 35) = 7.iv, p < .01. The interaction of task and phonology was significant, F(i, 35) = 96.6, p < .001. For the rhyming chore, shared phonology led to lower RTs (704 versus 760), while for the spelling task, shared phonology led to longer RTs (688 versus 648). The interaction of task and orthography was as well pregnant, F(1, 35) = 89.3, p < .001. For the rhyming job, shared orthography led to longer RTs than non-shared (761 versus 703), while for the spelling task, shared orthography led to shorter RTs than non-shared (650 versus 685). Thus, operation was better for the rhyme job when items shared phonology and better for the spelling task was items shared orthography. Crucially, phonology and orthography showed a significant interaction, F(1, 35) = 238.iii, p < .001. When phonology was shared, shared orthography led to faster RTs than differing orthography (649 versus 744). When phonology differed, shared orthography led to longer RTs (762 versus 646). The task ten phonology x orthography interaction was non significant (F < two.5).

Performance beyond conditions is presented in Tabular array 2. Planned comparisons using paired-samples t-tests indicated that accurateness was higher for O+P+ trials than O-P+ trials [t(35) = 3.19, p < .005] and higher for O-P- trials than O+P- trials [t(35) = half dozen.25, p < .001]. RTs also significantly varied with condition [F(iii, 77.8) = 102.6, p < .001]. RTs were shorter for O+P+ trials than O-P+ trials [t(35) = 7.23, p < .001], and shorter for O-P- trials than O+P- trials [t(35) = 15.88, p < .001]. Thus, orthographic overlap inside a trial led to faster and more accurate rhyme decisions and slower and less accurate no-rhyme decisions.

Table ii

Hateful (standard deviation) functioning across condition from Experiment ane. Accuracies are percent correct and RTs are in ms.

		O+P+	O-P-	O-P+	O+P-
Rhyming	Accuracy	92.7 (four.two)	93.v (4.1)	87.vii (eleven.i)	78.4 (15.eight)
	RT	677 (113)	675 (111)	732 (125)	845 (118)
Spelling	Accuracy	89.9 (six.3)	92.1 (5.5)	72.9 (xvi.eight)	86.0 (7.4)
	RT	621 (115)	616 (113)	755 (149)	679 (141)

For the spelling task, a repeated measures ANOVA with Greenhouse-Geisser correction showed that accuracy significantly varied with condition (Tabular array 2) [F(three, 53.1) = 31.9, p < .001]. Planned comparisons using paired-samples t-tests indicated that accuracy was higher for O+P+ trials than O+P- trials [t(35) = 5.lxxx, p < .001] and higher for O-P- trials than O-P+ trials [t(35) = 4.25, p < .001]. RTs also significantly varied with status [F(3, 88.2) = 78.41, p < .001]. RTs were shorter for O+P+ trials than O+P- trials [t(35) = vi.14 p < .001], and shorter for O-P- trials than O-P+ trials [t(35) = 10.79, p < .001]. Thus, phonological overlap within a trial led to amend performance when words were spelled similarly worse performance when words were spelled differently.

To quantify the effects of orthographic/phonological conflict for each individual, differences between the average performance on the trials without conflict (O+P+ and O-P-) and trials with conflict (O+P- and O-P+) were computed separately for each job and dependent variable. For this particular written report, classifying trials as "non-conflicting" and "alien" has the advantage of grouping trials identically for the rhyme and spelling tasks. As shown in Table 3, there were large individual differences in the extent to which individuals showed the effects of conflict. While all grouping means significantly differed from 0 (Table 3), some individuals showed reversed effects in accuracy and/or small-scale furnishings in RT, while others showed robust furnishings of conflict.

Table 3

Differences indicating effect of orthographic disharmonize on rhyming decisions and phonological disharmonize on spelling decisions from Experiment 1.

		Hateful (SD)	Comparing of mean to 0	Range
Rhyming	Accuracy (divergence in per centum correct)	10.1 (viii.9)	t(35) = 6.78, p < .001	−iii.0 to 10.1
	RT (difference in ms)	113 (48)	t(35) = xiv.i, p < .001	41 to 250
Spelling	Accuracy (divergence in percent correct)	11.6 (11.0)	t(35) = 6.3, p < .001	−6.2 to 52.5
	RT (difference in ms)	99 (51)	t(35) = 11.vi, p < .001	xv to 267

Relationships with Reading Skill

Given that individuals differed in the extent to which orthographic disharmonize impacted rhyme decisions and phonological conflict impacted spelling decisions, we explored relationships between those individual differences and functioning on the standardized measures of nonverbal IQ and reading. Pregnant relationships emerged between effects of orthographic conflict on rhyme decisions and Phonemic Decoding Efficiency scores (PDE; Tabular array four). Specifically, those individuals with amend phonological decoding skills were less impacted by orthographic conflict. Interestingly, this relationship was non apparent with Sight Give-and-take Efficiency or nonverbal IQ. Additionally, no significant relationships betwixt standardized examination functioning and spelling effects emerged, suggesting that reading skill relates specifically to the issue of orthographic overlap on phonological judgments, not to effects of conflict more broadly.

Tabular array iv

Associations (Pearson's r-values) between effects of conflict and cognitive performance in Experiment one.

	Rhyme Accuracy Event	Rhyme RT Effect	Spelling Accuracy Effect	Spelling RT Effect
TONI (Scaled Score)	−.06	.05	−.24	.04
TOWRE SWE (Scaled Score)	−.x	−.23	−.21	−.06
TOWRE PDE (Scaled Score)	−.36*	−.43**	−.14	−.06
ARHQ	.18	.10	−.09	−.18

Relationships betwixt PDE score and performance on each type of trial for the rhyme job were explored. PDE scores were not significantly correlated with accuracy for non-conflicting trials, r(34) = .25, p > .10, but were correlated with accuracy for disharmonize trials, r(34) = .38, p < .05 (Fig. 1) Accuracy was high in the non-conflict condition, regardless of PDE score. However, accuracy in the conflict condition was lower in those with lower PDE scores. A similar pattern was seen in RT (Fig. two), though relationships failed to attain significance [not-conflict: r(34) = .eleven, p > .10; conflict: r(34) = −.28, p < .10]. Four participants had scaled scores on the standardized measure out of reading less than 85. With those participants excluded, the association betwixt PDE and non-conflicting trials approached significance, r(30) = .32, p < .10, while the association between PDE and conflicting trials did not, r(xxx) = .18, p > .10.

Accuracy (pct correct) of rhyme decisions made on nonconflicting (O+P+ and O-P-) trials and conflicting (O-P+ and O+P-) trials in Experiment 1.

Reaction time for rhyme decisions for nonconflicting (O+P+ and O-P-) trials and conflicting (O-P+ and O+P-) trials in Experiment 1.

Experiment 1 Discussion

Clear effects of orthography were observed for a rhyme decision task, in keeping with earlier findings that spelling tin influence phonological judgments [1, 2, 6]. Accurateness was lower and RTs longer for rhyming pairs spelled differently and non-rhyming pairs that shared spelled. Similarly, conflicts between orthography and phonology impacted a spelling judgment task. Accuracy was college and RTs shorter for discussion endings spelled similarly when words rhymed and for give-and-take endings spelled differently when words did non rhyme. Individuals showed this effect to unlike degrees, with some participants showing much larger effects of disharmonize than others. One predictor of the extent to which orthographic conflict impacted rhyme decisions was phonological decoding ability. Participants with worse nonword reading performance were less accurate in making phonological decisions in the face up of orthographic conflict, indicating that these individuals might rely more heavily on orthographic information or feel more difficulty in inhibiting orthographic processing.

Performing the rhyme and spelling tasks inside the same experimental session could take influenced results, directing participants' attention to the spelling of word pairs. In particular, this may take exaggerated the effect of orthographic conflict on rhyme decisions. While job order was balanced, half of the participants in the sample performed the spelling task first, and it is possible that those participants showed particularly large effects, coloring the results of the experiment (S1 Appendix: Results from Experiment i participants who performed the rhyme task first). To further address this possibility, a second group of participants was recruited to perform the rhyme and spelling tasks separately. This 2d group of participants also completed a measure of reading comprehension to examine relationships between orthographic/phonological interaction and comprehension skill.

Experiment two Methods

Participants

38 neurologically normal adults (28 female) that did not participate in Experiment ane took function in the study and were compensated with partial form credit. All were right-handed native speakers of English. The study had the blessing of the University of Missouri—St Louis Institutional Review Board and informed consent was obtained from all participants. Six participants were removed because their behavioral functioning indicated imperfect understanding of the task (accuracy was below 60% on ane or more than experimental condition). See S3 Table: Mean (standard difference) performance across status for six participants dropped from Experiment two. Note that major results are non changed by the inclusion of these participants with depression accuracy (S4 Tabular array: Associations (Pearson's r-values) between effects of conflict and cognitive operation including all participants from Experiment ii.). For the remaining participants, scores on standardized measures of reading and nonverbal intelligence ranged from below average to well above average, similar to the group who participated in Experiment 1 (Table 5).

Tabular array v

Demographic characteristics of the sample for Experiment 2.

	Rhyming Experiment (North = xx)		Spelling Experiment (N = 18)
	Mean (SD)	Range	Mean (SD)	Range
Historic period	25.5 (viii.seven)	18–49	29.3 (12.3)	18–63
Developed Reading History Questionnaire	.34 (.11)	.17–.54	.31 (.xi)	.11–.46
Nelson-Denny Reading Comprehension (Scaled Score)	223.9 (22.1)	184–259	202.9 (17.five)	166–232
TOWRE SWE (Scaled Score)	106.0 (fourteen.7)	84–140	105.five (13.9)	84–130
TOWRE PDE (Scaled Score)	106.5 (8.1)	93–127	105.six (seven.6)	91–118

Psychometric Measures

All participants completed standardized measures of reading ability. Form G of the Nelson-Denny Reading Comprehension subtest [34], in which comprehension questions follow short passages, was used as a timed measure of reading comprehension. As in Experiment 1, participants completed the Sight Word Efficiency and Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtests of the Test of Give-and-take Read Efficiency [29] and the Adult Reading History Questionnaire [30].

There was a significant association between performance on the SWE and PDE subtests of the TOWRE, r(36) = .63, p < .001. SWE performance was significantly associated with ARHQ scores, r(36) = −.37, p < .05 and reading comprehension, r(36) = .48, p < .005. Yet, PDE scores were not significantly correlated with either ARHQ scores, r(36) = −.28, p > .05, or reading comprehension scores, r(36) = .26, p > .10.

Materials and Procedure

Twenty participants performed a visual rhyme decision task alone and xviii participants performed a visual spelling job alone. Stimuli and presentation were otherwise identical to those used in Experiment 1

Experiment 2 Results

Overall Effects

A ii (task) 10 2 (phonology) x 2 (orthography) mixed-pattern ANOVA was conducted separately for accurateness and RT. For accuracy, the main event of phonology and orthography were not significant (Fs < 1.5). The interaction of job and phonology was meaning, F(i, 36) = 32.1, p < .001. For the rhyming task, shared phonology led to higher accuracy than differing phonology (95.viii% versus 90.ane%), while for the spelling task, shared phonology led to less accuracy (89.two% versus 93.2%). The interaction of task and orthography was also significant, F(one, 36) = 17.three, p < .001. For the rhyming task, shared orthography led to less accuracy than differing orthography (ninety.5% versus 95.4%), while for the spelling task, shared orthography led to more accuracy (92.seven% versus 89.6%). Thus, accurateness was higher for the rhyme job when items shared phonology and higher for the spelling task was items shared orthography. Crucially, phonology and orthography showed a significant interaction, F(1, 36) = 63.iii, p < .001. When phonology was shared, shared orthography led to more accuracy (95.5% versus 89.5%). When phonology differed, shared orthography led to less accuracy (87.7% versus 95.5%). The chore x phonology x orthography interaction was not significant (F < 1).

For RT, the primary effect of phonology was meaning F(1, 36) = v.2, p < .05 as was the principal effect of orthography, F(1, 36) = 9.vii, p < .005. These main effects were tempered by significant interaction. The interaction of task and phonology was significant, F(1, 36) = 18.1, p < .001. For the rhyming chore, shared phonology led to faster RTs (714 versus 763), while for the spelling task, shared phonology led to longer RTs (744 versus 729). The interaction of task and orthography was also significant, F(i, 36) = 18.nine, p < .001. For the rhyming task, shared orthography led to longer RTs than non-shared (766 versus 712), while for the spelling task, shared orthography led to shorter RTs than non-shared (732 versus 741). Thus, performance was better for the rhyme task when items shared phonology and better for the spelling chore was items shared orthography. Crucially, phonology and orthography showed a meaning interaction, F(1, 36) = 178.3, p < .001. When phonology was shared, shared orthography led to faster RTs than differing orthography (695 versus 762). When phonology differed, shared orthography led to longer RTs (803 versus 690). The task ten phonology x orthography interaction was also meaning, F(1, 36) = 8.2, p < .01.

Functioning across conditions is presented in Table half-dozen. Planned comparisons using paired-samples t-tests indicated that accurateness was not significantly higher for O+P+ trials than O-P+ trials [t(19) = ane.6, p > .ten] and was college for O-P- trials than O+P- trials [t(19) = 5.3, p < .001]. RTs likewise significantly varied with condition [F(3, 33.2) = 66.iii, p < .001]. RTs were shorter for O+P+ trials than O-P+ trials [t(nineteen) = 6.8, p < .001], and shorter for O-P- trials than O+P- trials [t(19) = xiii.3, p < .001]. Thus, orthographic overlap inside a trial led to faster rhyme decisions and slower and less authentic no rhyme decisions.

Table 6

Mean (standard deviation) performance across condition in Experiment 2. Accuracies are percent correct and RTs are in ms.

		O+P+	O-P-	O-P+	O+P-
Rhyming	Accuracy	96.vi (2.half-dozen)	95.vii (iii.vi)	95.0 (iv.3)	84.5 (8.8)
	RT	687 (93)	682 (109)	741 (95)	845 (125)
Spelling	Accuracy	94.four (3.7)	95.iii (3.9)	83.9 (10.three)	91.0 (5.9)
	RT	704 (145)	698 (120)	784 (140)	760 (174)

For the spelling job, planned comparisons using paired-samples t-tests indicated that accuracy was higher for O+P+ trials than O+P- trials [t(17) = 2.62, p < .001] and higher for O-P- trials than O-P+ trials [t(17) = 5.17, p < .001]. RTs also significantly varied with status [F(three, 39.ane) = 14.1, p < .001]. RTs were shorter for O+P+ trials than O+P- trials [t(17) = 5.71, p < .001], and shorter for O-P- trials than O-P+ trials [t(17) = 4.69, p < .001]. Thus, phonological overlap inside a trial led to faster and more accurate decisions when words were spelled similarly and slower and less accurate decisions when words were spelled differently.

As in Experiment 1, differences between the average functioning on the trials without conflict (O+P+ and O-P-) and trials with disharmonize (O+P- and O-P+) were computed separately for each task and dependent variable. Every bit shown in Table 7, large individual difference in the extent to which individuals showed the furnishings of disharmonize were present in this sample equally well.

Table seven

Differences indicating event of orthographic disharmonize on rhyming decisions and phonological conflict on spelling decisions in Experiment 2.

		Mean (SD)	Comparison of hateful to 0	Range
Rhyming	Accuracy (divergence in percent correct)	six.iv (five.six)	t(19) = 5.1, p < .001	−8.7 to 14.8
	RT (difference in ms)	109 (31)	t(19) = fifteen.9, p < .001	66 to 187
Spelling	Accuracy (difference in per centum correct)	7.iv (5.2)	t(17) = 6.2, p < .001	0.0 to 16.7
	RT (difference in ms)	70 (51)	t(17) = 5.9, p < .001	−4 to 195

Relationships with Reading Skill

Given that individuals differed in the extent to which orthographic disharmonize impacted rhyme decisions and phonological disharmonize impacted spelling decisions, we explored relationships between those individual differences and operation on the standardized measures of nonverbal IQ and reading. Significant relationships emerged between effects of orthographic conflict on rhyme decisions and scores on the Sight Give-and-take Efficiency and Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtests (Table 8). Specifically, those individuals with better reading skills were less impacted by orthographic conflict. Interestingly, this relationship was not apparent with reading comprehension, indicating that decoding power specifically, not cognitive skill in general, predicted the extent to which orthography influenced the speed and accuracy of rhyme decisions. No significant relationships between standardized test performance and spelling effects emerged.

Tabular array 8

Associations (Pearson's r-values) betwixt effects of conflict and cerebral operation in Experiment 2.

	Rhyme Accuracy Consequence	Rhyme RT Upshot	Spelling Accuracy Effect	Spelling RT Consequence
Nelson-Denny Comprehension (Scaled Score)	−.23	.34	−.20	−.26
TOWRE SWE (Scaled Score)	−.47*	.twenty	.09	−.26
TOWRE PDE (Scaled Score)	−.52*	.33	.39	−.twoscore
ARHQ	.32	−.27	.xix	.19

Relationships between PDE score and performance on each type of trial for the rhyme task were explored. PDE scores were non significantly correlated with accuracy for non-conflicting trials, r(18) = −.16, p > .10, just were correlated with accuracy for conflict trials, r(18) = .45, p < .05 (Fig. iii). Accurateness was high in the non-conflict condition, regardless of PDE score. However, accurateness in the conflict condition was lower in those with lower PDE scores. A similar design was seen with SWE scores, [not-conflict: r(18) = −.10, p > .10; disharmonize: r(18) = .45, p > .05].

Accuracy (per centum correct) of rhyme decisions made on nonconflicting (O+P+ and O-P-) trials and conflicting (O-P+ and O+P-) trials from Experiment two.

Experiment 2 Discussion

As in Experiment 1, orthographic overlap influenced rhyme judgments and phonological overlap influenced spelling judgments. Participants were slower and less accurate in the face of disharmonize between orthography and phonology when rhyme and spelling tasks were performed in isolation. Crucially, phonological decoding skill was correlated with the degree to which orthographic conflict impacted rhyme decisions in a second sample. Those participants who demonstrated better reading skills showed a larger touch of orthographic conflict on rhyme decisions.

In Experiment 2, accuracy on trials with orthographic conflict was associated with non just nonword reading skill, only skill at reading familiar words. One possibility is that the relationship with sight give-and-take reading observed in Experiment 2 is an artifact of the relatively small sample size and boosted data would reveal that no true relationship exists. Alternately, it is possible that presenting the rhyme judgment task in the same session every bit the spelling judgment task masked relationships between performance on alien trials and familiar word reading. From this perspective, peradventure drawing participants' attention to the spelling of words through the spelling judgment job neutralized the furnishings of sight word recognition skill on processing conflicting stimuli.

General Discussion

In ii experiments, word spelling was observed to touch on a phonological task, in accordance with previous literature [ane, 2, 3, 4]. This effect was apparent whether or non it was performed in the aforementioned session as a spelling recognition task. For rhyme judgments, participants were both slower and less accurate to accept rhyming pairs when words were spelled differently and to pass up non-rhyming pairs when words were spelled similarly. The present work extended this finding to demonstrate that conflicts between orthography and phonology impacted a spelling judgment task. For spelling judgments, participants were more than accurate and faster to indicate that word endings were spelled similarly when words shared phonology, and more accurate and faster to indicate that words were spelled differently when phonology differed as well. While furnishings were apparent at the group level, sizeable individual differences were observed, with some participants showing much larger effects of conflict than others. Notably, in two separate samples, the extent to which orthographic conflict impacted rhyme decisions was associated with reading skill. Individuals with worse reading performance were less accurate in making phonological decisions in the face of orthographic conflict.

While similar furnishings of orthographic disharmonize on rhyme decisions have been observed with both visual and auditory discussion presentations [xx, 21], the visual presentation used in the present study may change the interpretation of results. Specifically, visual presentation requires print-to-sound conversion. However, the stimuli chosen for the study were relatively unproblematic, familiar words (monosyllabic, 6 letters or less, loftier frequency) to lessen the requirement for decoding. The visual presentation may also have served to make the job-irrelevant spelling data more salient in the rhyme condition than it would have been with auditory presentation. Thus, differences in functioning may reverberate private differences in the power to inhibit orthographic processing, rather than individual differences in automated admission to orthography.

In i light, poor phonological decoding power might reflect weaker links between graphemes and phonemes, and those weak links might let participants to focus on either orthography or phonology more than independently. In the current experiments, the reverse design was shown, as worse phonological decoding was associated with greater influence of orthography on phonological decisions. 1 possible interpretation is that the phonological skills of participants with depression PDE scores were particularly weak, and insufficient to support rhyme decisions, while the orthographic skills of those participants were stronger. However, PDE and SWE were significantly associated in both samples. Another possible estimation is that participants with lower nonword reading scores rely more heavily on orthographic processing or have less ability to inhibit orthographic access while reading than individuals with higher nonword reading scores. While this reliance would often exist beneficial, it would be costly when orthography and phonology conflict, as in the word pairs used in this study.

The finding that adults with worse reading operation showed detail difficulty making rhyme decisions for pairs with a conflict between orthographic information and phonological information parallels earlier findings from adolescents with dyslexia [17] and adult literacy students [9]. Yet, the larger effect of orthographic conflict on poorer decoders conflicts with other studies that have institute that younger and poorer readers do not rely more heavily on orthographic information. Studies of younger individuals have tended to reveal that, rather than enhanced sensitivity to orthography, children with dyslexia failed to show effects of orthography [13, fourteen]. Such a pattern of reduced impact of orthography also characterizes adults whose deficits are persistent or extend beyond phonological decoding. Adults with worse spelling skills showed smaller furnishings of orthography on an auditory lexical determination task [nineteen]. Adults with dyslexia showed similar furnishings to typical readers for an auditory rhyme judgment job, and a less pronounced consistency result for an auditory lexical conclusion task [11].

One explanation for this credible disparity is that reliance on orthographic information may narrate mature readers who have somewhat compensated for poor unmarried-word reading skills. Thus, larger effects on orthography might be more than credible in adolescents and adults who struggle to read, but not children, and more credible among individuals whose educational path might have led a greater degree of compensation (e.g., adolescents, developed literacy students, university students) than adults with dyslexia. The university students in this sample have had years of experience with text, different children with dyslexia, and information technology is possible that those years of experience take shaped their reading systems. Further, the participants in this study all function in a university setting, and are therefore likely to take developed strategies that subtract their reliance on their relatively weak phonological skills.

Therefore, i potential interpretation of the larger touch on of orthography among worse readers is that these university students compensate for poor phonological decoding skills with increased reliance on orthography. Previous case studies accept provided some support for the thought that some adults may compensate for poor phonological processing with enhanced skill or reliance on orthographic processing. An individual with poor phonological decoding skills excelled at an orthographic choice task, selecting the right spellings of words more quickly than nigh control subjects [15]. Another adult with poor phonological skills responded more than quickly to irregular words than to regular words, a pattern opposite of that institute in control subjects [16]. It is possible that the participants in this study are demonstrating something similar by relying more heavily on orthography in a phonological task. It remains unclear whether this compensatory strategy would be equally apparent on other phonological tasks, peculiarly those that are non metaphonological in nature.

While furnishings of orthographic/phonological conflict were observed for both the rhyme and spelling tasks, relationships between the size of the effect and reading skill were apparent only for the rhyme chore and were restricted to the measure of nonword reading. This relationship is of particular interest considering both measures chronicle to phonological abilities. The relationships suggests that those adults with poor phonological decoding skills may rely more heavily on orthographic information while making phonological judgments well-nigh words, and thus testify an enhanced effect of disharmonize. The lack of relationships with other cognitive abilities suggests that phonological decoding skill specifically, and not intelligence or reading skill more broadly, relates to the effect of orthographic conflict on phonological decisions.

No factors that we measured related to the upshot of phonology on the spelling job. Notwithstanding, there was substantial variability across individuals in that issue too. Thus, while some participants showed greater impact of dissimilar pronunciation on decisions regarding words' spellings than others, the extent to which an individual was impacted by phonological conflict was non related to nonword reading, sight word reading, or reading comprehension skills. It is possible that variability in the outcome of phonological conflict on orthographic decisions would be explained by individual differences in a more sensitive measure of orthographic processing than was used in the present study. While speeding reading of familiar words (the SWE subtest) certainly involves orthographic access, future work might apply a more pure mensurate of orthographic processing skill (e.chiliad., performance on a word-likeness job or measure of sensitivity to bigram frequency). In this context, it is worthy of notation that spelling skill has been shown to impact auditory lexical conclusion operation [19].

This study has limitations. The rhyme chore used here is metaphonological, and requires an explicit analysis of phonological information. Therefore, questions have been raised most whether effects observed in this task issue from strategy utilise, rather than reflecting automatic activation of the orthographic lawmaking [35]. Whether poor phonological decoders use unlike strategies or show different automatic effects, in that location is however a relationship between phonological processing ability and the affect of orthography. Additional insight in the locus of the issue would be provided past boosted piece of work using other, more natural language tasks. Participants in the study were all adults, and we therefore take limited information regarding their educational background and childhood reading abilities. In society to explore the possibility that enhanced reliance on orthographic processing is a compensatory strategy used by mature readers, longitudinal studies tracking the development of orthographic skills in individuals with poor phonological skills volition be necessary.

Overall, this study demonstrated effects of disharmonize between orthography and phonology on both rhyme and spelling tasks. Individual differences in both the size of these effects and reading skills were observed in a university sample, indicating that some individuals display more sensitivity to this conflict than others. Specifically, individuals with worse phonological decoding skill were more impacted by conflicting orthography in a phonological task. This finding complements prior piece of work, which demonstrated that individuals with stiff spelling skills prove larger furnishings of orthography [19], and suggests that variation in the effect of orthographic conflict relates to specific cognitive skills. Thus, poor phonological decoders either display markedly unlike reading strategies, or show a dissimilar degree of automated access to word class data than individuals with amend nonword reading skills. Understanding this variability is of import for understanding the reading procedure more broadly.

Supporting Information

S1 Appendix

Results from Experiment one participants who performed the rhyme job commencement.

(Md)

S1 Table

Mean (standard deviation) operation across status for 7 participants dropped from Experiment one.

Accuracies are percent correct and RTs are in ms.

(DOC)

S2 Table

Associations (Pearson'southward r-values) between effects of conflict and cognitive functioning including all participants from Experiment 1.

Asterisks indicate relationships which are statistically pregnant. * p < .05, ** p < .01

(Dr.)

S3 Table

Hateful (standard deviation) performance across condition for six participants dropped from Experiment ii.

Accuracies are percent right and RTs are in ms.

(DOC)

S4 Tabular array

Associations (Pearson's r-values) between effects of disharmonize and cognitive performance including all participants from Experiment 2.

Asterisks bespeak relationships which are statistically significant. * p < .05, ** p < .01

(Dr.)

Acknowledgments

Nosotros thank Lindsey McIntyre, Melanie Jett, Kristin Ponzar, and Remington Mallett for their support in data collection.

Funding Argument

This research was supported by a University of Missouri Enquiry Lath Grant to the first author. The funders had no role in report design, data collection and analysis, conclusion to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Information Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

References

one. Seidenberg MS, Tanenhaus MK (1979) Orthographic effects on rhyme monitoring. J Exp Psychol Hum Acquire 5: 546–554. [Google Scholar]

two. Ziegler JC, Ferrand L (1998) Orthography shapes the perception of speech: The consistency result in auditory word recognition. Psychon Bull Rev 5: 683–689. [Google Scholar]

3. Kramer AF, Donchin E (1987) Brain potentials as indices of orthographic and phonological interaction during word matching. J Exp Psychol Larn Mem Cogn 13: 76–86. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. Rugg MD, Barrett SE (1987) Outcome-related potentials and the interaction between orthographic and phonological information in a rhyme-judgment task. Brain Lang 32: 336–361. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Peereman R, Dufour S, Burt JS (2009) Orthographic influences in spoken word recognition: the consistency consequence in semantic and gender categorization tasks. Psychon Bull Rev 16:363–368. x.3758/PBR.xvi.2.363 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

6. Chéreau C, Gaskell MG, Dumay N (2007) Reading spoken words: Orthographic effects in auditory priming. Cognition 102: 341–360. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

vii. Dijkstra T, Roelofs A, Fieuws Due south (1995) Orthographic effects on phoneme monitoring. Can J Exp Psychol 49: 264–271. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

8. Ziegler JC, Muneaux M, Grainger J (2003). Neighborhood effects in auditory discussion recognition: Phonological competition and orthographic facilitation. J Mem Lang 48: 779–793. [Google Scholar]

9. Greenberg D, Ehri LC, Perin D (1997) Are word-reading processes the aforementioned or different in adult literacy students and tertiary–fifth graders matched for reading level? J Educ Psychol 89: 262–275. [Google Scholar]

ten. Miller-Shaul S (2005) The characteristics of young and developed dyslexic readers on reading and reading related cognitive tasks as compared to normal readers. Dyslexia xi: 132–151. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

eleven. Pattamadilok C, Nelis A, Kolinsky R (2014) How does reading performance modulate the impact of orthographic noesis on voice communication processing? A comparison of normal readers and dyslexic adults. Ann Dyslexia 64: 57–76. 10.1007/s11881-013-0086-8 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

12. Zecker SG (1991) The orthographic lawmaking: Developmental trends in reading-disabled and unremarkably-achieving children. Ann Dyslexia 41: 178–192. 10.1007/BF02648085 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

thirteen. Ziegler JC, Muneaux M (2007) Orthographic facilitation and phonological inhibition in spoken give-and-take recognition: A developmental written report. Psychon Balderdash Rev 14: 75–80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. Desroches Every bit, Cone NE, Bolger DJ, Bitan T, Burman DD, Booth JR (2010) Children with reading difficulties evidence differences in brain regions associated with orthographic processing during spoken linguistic communication processing. Brain Res 1356: 73–84. 10.1016/j.brainres.2010.07.097 [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

15. Standish VHAJ (1996) Skilled reading with impaired phonology: A case study. Cogn Neuropsychol 13: 1207–1222. [Google Scholar]

sixteen. Howard D, Best West (1997) Impaired nonword reading with normal word reading: A instance study. J Res Read xx: 55–65. [Google Scholar]

17. McPherson WB, Ackerman PT, Holcomb PJ, Dykman RA (1998) Consequence-related encephalon potentials elicited during phonological processing differentiate subgroups of reading disabled adolescents. Brain Lang 62: 163–185. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18. Greenberg D, Ehri LC, Perin D (2002) Practise adult literacy students brand the same give-and-take-reading and spelling errors as children matched for word-reading age? Sci Stud Read 6: 221–243. [Google Scholar]

19. Dich N (2011) Individual differences in the size of orthographic effects in spoken word recognition: The function of listeners' orthographic skills. Appl Psycholinguist 32: 169–186. [Google Scholar]

20. Kramer AF, Donchin Due east (1987) Brain potentials equally indices of orthographic and phonological interaction during give-and-take matching. J Exp Psychol Acquire Mem Cogn 13: 76 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Rugg Doc, Barrett SE (1987) Result-related potentials and the interaction betwixt orthographic and phonological information in a rhyme-judgment task. Encephalon Lang 32: 336–361. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

22. Praamstra P, Stegeman DF (1993) Phonological effects on the auditory N400 event-related brain potential. Cogn Encephalon Res 1: 73–86. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23. Grossi Thousand, Coch D, Coffey-Corina Due south, Holcomb PJ, Neville HJ (2001) Phonological processing in visual rhyming: a developmental ERP written report. J Cogn Neurosci 13: 610–625. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24. Jackson NE (2005) Are academy students' component reading skills related to their text comprehension and academic achievement? Larn Individ Differ 15: 113–139. [Google Scholar]

25. Welcome SE, Leonard CM, Chiarello C (2010) Alternate reading strategies and variable disproportion of the planum temporale in adult resilient readers. Brain Lang, 113: 73–83. x.1016/j.bandl.2010.01.003 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

26. Howard D, All-time Westward (1997) Dumb non-discussion reading with normal word reading: A case study. J Res Read twenty: 55–65. [Google Scholar]

27. Holmes VM, Standish JM (1996) Skilled reading with impaired phonology: A example study. Cogn Neuropsychol 13: 1207–1222. [Google Scholar]

28. Brown Fifty, Sherbenou R, Johnsen Due south (1997) Test of nonverbal intelligence: A language- free measure of cognitive power Austin, TX: Pro-ed. [Google Scholar]

29. Torgesen JK, Wagner RK, Rashotte CA (1999) Test of Word Reading Efficiency. Austin, TX: Pro-ed. [Google Scholar]

30. Lefly DL, Pennington BF (2000) Reliability and validity of the adult reading history questionnaire. J Learn Disabil 33: 286–296. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

31. Wilson K (1988) The MRC Psycholinguistic Database: motorcar readable lexicon, version 2. Behav Res Methods 20: 6–11. [Google Scholar]

32. Zeno SM, Ivens SH, Millard RT, Duvvuri R (1995) The educator's give-and-take frequency guide Brewster, NY: Touchstone Practical Science Assembly. [Google Scholar]

33. Medler DA, Folder JR (2005) MCWord: An on-line orthographic database of the English language. <http://www.neuro.mcw.edu/mcword/>.

34. Dark-brown JI, Fishco VV, Hanna K (1993) Nelson-Denny Reading Test. Chicago, IL: Riverside. [Google Scholar]

35. Damian MF, Bowers JS (2010) Orthographic effects in rhyme monitoring tasks: Are they automatic? Eur J Cogn Psychol 22: 106–116. [Google Scholar]

purdienotin1969.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4353721/