The Science of Reading. Группа авторов
Читать онлайн книгу.50, 1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2019.02.001.
168 Virtue, S., Haberman, J., Clancy, Z., Parrish, T., & Beeman, M. J. (2006). Neural activity of inferences during story comprehension. Brain Research, 1084(1), 104–114. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.02.053.
169 Warren, T., & Dickey, M.W. (2021). The use of linguistic and world knowledge in language processing. Language and Linguistics Compass. doi: 10.1111/lnc3.12411.
170 Wheeler, D. D. (1970). Processes in word recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 1, 59–85. doi: 10.1016/0010‐0285(70)90005‐8.
171 Wolf, M., & Bowers, P. G. (1999). The double‐deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 415–438. doi: 10.1037/0022‐0663.91.3.415.
172 Wydell, T. N. (2019). Developmental dyslexia in Japanese. In L. Verhoeven, C. Perfetti, and K. Pugh (Eds.), Developmental dyslexia across languages and writing systems (pp 176–199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781108553377.009.
173 Xu, M. Tan, L. H., & Perfetti, C. P. (2019). Developmental dyslexia in Chinese. In L. Verhoeven, C. Perfetti, and K. Pugh (Eds.), Developmental dyslexia across languages and writing systems (pp. 200–226). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781108553377.010.
174 Xu, J., Kemeny, S., Park, G., Frattali, C., & Braun, A. (2005). Language in context: Emergent features of word, sentence, and narrative comprehension. Neuroimage, 25(3), 1002–1015. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.12.013.
175 Yang, J. F., McCandliss, B. D., Shu, H., & Zevin, J. D. (2009). Simulating language‐specific and language‐general effects in a statistical learning model of Chinese reading. Journal of Memory & Language, 61, 238–257. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.05.001.
176 Yarkoni, T., Speer, N. K., & Zacks, J. M. (2008). Neural substrates of narrative comprehension and memory. NeuroImage, 41(4), 1408–1425. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.03.062.
177 Zevin, J. (2019). Modeling developmental dyslexia across languages and writing systems. In L. Verhoeven, C. Perfetti, & K. Pugh (Eds.), Developmental dyslexia across languages and writing systems (pp. 372–390). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781108553377.017.
178 Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 3–29. doi: 10.1037/0033‐2909.131.1.3.
179 Ziegler, J. C., Perry, C., & Zorzi, M. (2019). Modeling the variability of developmental dyslexia. In L. Verhoeven, C. Perfetti, and K. Pugh (Eds.), Developmental dyslexia across languages and writing systems (pp. 350–371). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781108553377.016.
180 Zwaan, R. A., Langston, M. C., & Graesser, A. C. (1995). The construction of situation models in narrative comprehension: An event‐indexing model. Psychological Science, 6(5), 292–297. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐9280.1995.tb00513.x.
Notes
1 1 As applied in the Construction Integration model, “construction” contrasts sharply with its use in other comprehension accounts, where it entails an active role for the reader in constructing understanding (e.g., Graesser et al., 1994).
2 2 English spellings are less irregular when additional factors are considered: the relative frequencies of different letter‐phoneme mappings, the within‐word positional constraints imposed by phonotactics and spelling conventions (Kessler, 2003), and the islands of regularity afforded by morphology (Rastle, this volume).
CHAPTER TWO Models of Word Reading : What Have We Learned?
Mark S. Seidenberg, Molly Farry‐Thorn, and Jason D. Zevin
In reading, much depends on word recognition. Words are the elements out of which expressions are composed. They act as hubs that index the many types of information used in comprehending and producing language, whether written, spoken, or signed (Seidenberg, 2017). Words encode information about their meanings and senses, their internal structure (principally syllables, morphemes, phonemes), and their grammatical functions (e.g., noun, verb). They also carry information about the linguistic contexts in which they occur: for example the verb put refers to a particular action that occurs with an agent, object, and location, whereas carry only requires the agent and object (MacDonald et al., 1994). Knowledge of a word also includes information about language use: how often words occur and co‐occur with other words, given what is in the world and what we choose to communicate about (Clark, 2015). This statistical information is encoded as people acquire and use language (Seidenberg & MacDonald, 2018). Gaining the ability to read and understand words quickly and accurately is the great leap into literacy, but one that is challenging for many children.
Visual word recognition has been the focus of an enormous amount of research because of its complexity and importance, and because most of what is involved would otherwise be hidden from awareness (for reviews, see Rastle, 2016; Cohen‐Shikora & Balota, 2016). The goal of this research is to develop theories that explain its many aspects: the knowledge and processes that underlie word recognition; the linguistic, cognitive, and perceptual capacities recruited for the purpose; how the skill develops, the bases of individual differences, and how the brain makes it all happen, among other topics. Theories are often expressed as “models” that provide detailed accounts of important components of the word recognition system. Although the use of such models dates from the nineteenth century, progress was greatly accelerated by two developments from the 1970s–1980s. The first was Marshall and Newcombe’s (1973) formulation of what came to be known as the “dual‐route” model of reading (Coltheart, 1978). The model was an account of impairments in reading aloud observed in patients following brain injury; Coltheart and colleagues later applied it to unimpaired reading and learning to read. Much of the subsequent research in this area can be seen as following from this pioneering work. The second was the creation of a “connectionist” computational model of reading, again focused on reading aloud, by Seidenberg and McClelland (1989; hereafter SM89). This work was important because it challenged the core assumptions underlying the dual‐route approach and introduced a new theoretical framework for visual word recognition and other types of lexical processing, based on the PDP framework developed by Rumelhart et al. (1986). Coltheart and colleagues subsequently developed several computational models of the dual‐route theory, collectively known as the dual‐route cascade (DRC) model (Coltheart et al., 1993; Coltheart et al., 2001).
An enormous amount has been learned since then. Visual word recognition is one of the great success stories in modern cognitive science and neuroscience. For much of this period, the existence of two competing theoretical approaches – dual‐route and connectionist – accelerated research progress. These theories provided frameworks for investigating numerous aspects of reading and greatly expanded the scope of research in English and other languages. The theories also stimulated the development of computational models of specific types of information (e.g., orthography, semantics) and related phenomena (e.g., morphology: Seidenberg & Gonnerman, 2000; Seidenberg & Plaut, 2014). Visual word recognition also became a domain in which to explore contrasting approaches to computational modeling of cognitive phenomena (Coltheart, 2005; Seidenberg & Plaut, 2006), and methods for studying brain structure and function (e.g., Cox et al., 2015; Woollams et al., this volume). Given the sustained interest in the topic over many years, visual word recognition represents an important case study illustrating what modern cognitive science and neuroscience has achieved.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a critical perspective on this long endeavor, focusing on the role of computational modeling. Computational models of cognition serve two essential, interacting functions. One is methodological. Modeling requires theoretical claims to be specified at a level that allows them to be implemented as working simulations. A theory’s validity