TY - JOUR
T1 - Lexical reading in dysfluent readers of German
AU - Gangl, Melanie
AU - Moll, Kristina
AU - Jones, Manon W.
AU - Banfi, Chiara
AU - Schulte-Körne, Gerd
AU - Landerl, Karin
N1 - This research was supported by grants from the German Research Foundation (DFG, grant no. MO 2569/2-1) and the Austrian Science Fund (FWF, grant no. I 1658-G22).
PY - 2018/1
Y1 - 2018/1
N2 - Dyslexia in consistent orthographies like German is characterized by dysfluent reading, which is often assumed to result from failure to build up an orthographic lexicon and overreliance on decoding. However, earlier evidence indicates effects of lexical processing at least in some German dyslexic readers. We investigated variations in reading style in an eye-tracking paradigm with German dysfluent 3rd and 4th graders. Twenty-six TypFix-readers (fixation counts within the range of 47 age-matched typical readers) were compared with 42 HighFix-readers (increased fixation counts). Both groups showed lexical access: Words were read more efficiently than nonwords and pseudohomophones. TypFix-readers showed stronger reliance on lexical reading than HighFix-readers (smaller length effects for number of fixations and total reading time, stronger lexicality effects for gaze duration, stronger word-pseudohomophone effects for mean saccade amplitude). We conclude that in both groups, sublexical and lexical reading processes were impaired due to inefficient visual-verbal integration.
AB - Dyslexia in consistent orthographies like German is characterized by dysfluent reading, which is often assumed to result from failure to build up an orthographic lexicon and overreliance on decoding. However, earlier evidence indicates effects of lexical processing at least in some German dyslexic readers. We investigated variations in reading style in an eye-tracking paradigm with German dysfluent 3rd and 4th graders. Twenty-six TypFix-readers (fixation counts within the range of 47 age-matched typical readers) were compared with 42 HighFix-readers (increased fixation counts). Both groups showed lexical access: Words were read more efficiently than nonwords and pseudohomophones. TypFix-readers showed stronger reliance on lexical reading than HighFix-readers (smaller length effects for number of fixations and total reading time, stronger lexicality effects for gaze duration, stronger word-pseudohomophone effects for mean saccade amplitude). We conclude that in both groups, sublexical and lexical reading processes were impaired due to inefficient visual-verbal integration.
U2 - 10.1080/10888438.2017.1339709
DO - 10.1080/10888438.2017.1339709
M3 - Article
SN - 1088-8438
VL - 22
SP - 24
EP - 40
JO - Scientific Studies of Reading
JF - Scientific Studies of Reading
IS - 1
ER -