The reading ability of good and poor temporal processors among a group of college students

Salvato in:
Dettagli Bibliografici
Pubblicato in:Perception and Psychophysics vol. 70, no. 4 (May 2008), p. 697-706
Autore principale: Au, Agnes
Altri autori: Lovegrove, Bill
Pubblicazione:
Springer Nature B.V.
Soggetti:
Accesso online:Citation/Abstract
Full Text
Full Text - PDF
Tags: Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!

MARC

LEADER 00000nab a2200000uu 4500
001 204210007
003 UK-CbPIL
022 |a 0031-5117 
022 |a 1943-3921 
022 |a 1943-393X 
035 |a 204210007 
045 2 |b d20080501  |b d20080531 
084 |a 18556931 
084 |a 162335  |2 nlm 
100 1 |a Au, Agnes 
245 1 |a The reading ability of good and poor temporal processors among a group of college students 
260 |b Springer Nature B.V.  |c May 2008 
513 |a Journal Article 
520 3 |a In this study, we examined whether good auditory and good visual temporal processors were better than their poor counterparts on certain reading measures. Various visual and auditory temporal tasks were administered to 105 undergraduates. They read some phonologically regular pseudowords and irregular words that were presented sequentially in the same ("word" condition) and in different ("line" condition) locations. Results indicated that auditory temporal acuity was more relevant to reading, whereas visual temporal acuity was more relevant to spelling. Good auditory temporal processors did not have the advantage in processing pseudowords, even though pseudoword reading correlated significantly with auditory temporal processing. These results suggested that some higher cognitive or phonological processes mediated the relationship between auditory temporal processing and pseudoword reading. Good visual temporal processors did not have the advantage in processing irregular words. They also did not process the line condition more accurately than the word condition. The discrepancy might be attributed to the use of normal adults and the unnatural reading situation that did not fully capture the function of the visual temporal processes. The distributions of auditory and visual temporal processing abilities were co-occurring to some degree, but they maintained considerable independence. There was also a lack of a relationship between the type and severity of reading deficits and the type and number of temporal deficits. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]   In this study, we examined whether good auditory and good visual temporal processors were better than their poor counterparts on certain reading measures. Various visual and auditory temporal tasks were administered to 105 undergraduates. They read some phonologically regular pseudowords and irregular words that were presented sequentially in the same ("word" condition) and in different ("line" condition) locations. Results indicated that auditory temporal acuity was more relevant to reading, whereas visual temporal acuity was more relevant to spelling. Good auditory temporal processors did not have the advantage in processing pseudowords, even though pseudoword reading correlated significantly with auditory temporal processing. These results suggested that some higher cognitive or phonological processes mediated the relationship between auditory temporal processing and pseudoword reading. Good visual temporal processors did not have the advantage in processing irregular words. They also did not process the line condition more accurately than the word condition. The discrepancy might be attributed to the use of normal adults and the unnatural reading situation that did not fully capture the function of the visual temporal processes. The distributions of auditory and visual temporal processing abilities were co-occurring to some degree, but they maintained considerable independence. There was also a lack of a relationship between the type and severity of reading deficits and the type and number of temporal deficits. 
650 2 2 |a Adolescent 
650 2 2 |a Adult 
650 1 2 |a Aptitude 
650 2 2 |a Female 
650 2 2 |a Humans 
650 2 2 |a Intelligence 
650 2 2 |a Male 
650 2 2 |a Middle Aged 
650 1 2 |a Reading 
650 1 2 |a Students  |x psychology 
650 1 2 |a Time Perception 
650 2 2 |a Universities 
650 2 2 |a Vocabulary 
653 |a Studies 
653 |a Adults 
653 |a Ability 
653 |a Nonwords 
653 |a Temporal processing 
653 |a Phonology 
653 |a College students 
653 |a Undergraduate students 
653 |a Spelling 
653 |a Time 
653 |a Reading ability 
653 |a Comorbidity 
653 |a Motor Reactions 
653 |a Eye Movements 
653 |a Auditory Perception 
653 |a Reading Tests 
653 |a Cognitive Processes 
653 |a Reading Difficulties 
653 |a Resistance (Psychology) 
700 1 |a Lovegrove, Bill 
773 0 |t Perception and Psychophysics  |g vol. 70, no. 4 (May 2008), p. 697-706 
786 0 |d ProQuest  |t Health & Medical Collection 
856 4 1 |3 Citation/Abstract  |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/204210007/abstract/embedded/L8HZQI7Z43R0LA5T?source=fedsrch 
856 4 0 |3 Full Text  |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/204210007/fulltext/embedded/L8HZQI7Z43R0LA5T?source=fedsrch 
856 4 0 |3 Full Text - PDF  |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/204210007/fulltextPDF/embedded/L8HZQI7Z43R0LA5T?source=fedsrch