Coarse or fine? Grain size and morpho-orthographic segmentation in struggling readers.

Publisher: International Dyslexia Association Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 8406611 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1934-7243 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 07369387 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Ann Dyslexia Subsets: MEDLINE

Publication: <2001->: Baltimore, MD : International Dyslexia Association
Original Publication: Baltimore, Md. : Orton Dyslexia Society, c1982-

Reading* ; Semantics*; Adult ; Cognition ; Humans ; Reaction Time/physiology ; Writing

Morpho-orthographic segmentation, rapid parsing of complex written words into their morphological components, is a potential source of difference in word recognition between struggling and typical readers. Although typical readers use morpho-semantic representations and morpho-orthographic segmentation in processing morphologically complex words, struggling readers typically rely on morpho-semantic processes involving coarse-grained processing of whole-word units rather than morpho-orthographic segmentation involving fine-grained letter processing. We tested this limitation in struggling readers, examining reading-ability differences among chronological-age, reading-age, and adult groups in morpho-orthographic segmentation in a primed lexical decision task. We transposed letter order across the morphological boundary of complex-word primes, focusing on disruption in priming effects of morphological and pseudo-orthographic primes that involved only orthographic overlap with target words. Morpho-semantic (coarse-grained) processing in Grade 2 typical readers was indicated by no moderation of priming effects by suffix types and letter transposition. By Grade 6, evidence of emerging fine grained analysis was found in both groups, with clear evidence of both coarse and fine grained analysis in adults. Grade 6 struggling readers showed comparable patterns of coarse and fine grained analysis as Grade 6 typical readers. Although they experienced generalized priming effects, struggling readers did experience response time disruption with transposed primes, indicating that they, like Grade 6 typical readers, adopt fine-grained processing perhaps as a precursor of emerging morpho-orthographic segmentation.
(© 2021. The International Dyslexia Association.)

Apel, K., Diehm, E., & Apel, L. (2013). Using multiple measures of morphological awareness to assess its relation to reading. Topics in Language Disorders, 133, 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.Ob013e318280f576. (PMID: 10.1097/TLD.Ob013e318280f576)
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge University Press. (PMID: 10.1017/CBO9780511801686)
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005. (PMID: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005)
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R Package Version 1, pp. 1–5. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.
Bell, B., Morgan, G. B., Schoeneberger, J. a, Loudermilk, B. L., Kromrey, J. D., & Ferron, J. M. (2010). Dancing the sample-size limbo with mixed models: How low can you go? SAS Global Forum 2010, 1–11. Retrieved from https://support.sas.com/resources/papers/proceedings10/197-2010.pdf.
Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Nagy, W., & Carlisle, J. (2010). Growth in phonological, orthographic, and morphological awareness in grades 1 to 6. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 39, 141-163. 1007/sl0936-009-9130-6.
Beyersmann, E., Casalis, S., Ziegler, J. C., & Grainger, J. (2015). Language proficiency and morpho-orthographic segmentation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1054–1061. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0752-9. (PMID: 10.3758/s13423-014-0752-9)
Beyersmann, E., Castles, A., & Coltheart, M. (2012). Morphological processing during visual word recognition in developing readers: Evidence from masked priming. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 1306–1326. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.656661. (PMID: 10.1080/17470218.2012.656661)
Beyersmann, E., Cavalli, E., Casalis, S., & Colé, P. (2016). Embedded stem priming effects in prefixed and suffixed pseudowords. Scientific Studies of Reading, 20(3), 220–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2016.1140769. (PMID: 10.1080/10888438.2016.1140769)
Beyersmann, E., Mccormick, S., & Rastle, K. (2013). Letter transpositions within morphemes and across morpheme boundaries. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 2389–2410. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.782326. (PMID: 10.1080/17470218.2013.782326)
Bowers, P. N., Kirby, J. R., & Deacon, H. S. (2010). The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 80, 144–179. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309359353. (PMID: 10.3102/0034654309359353)
Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977–990. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.977. (PMID: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.977)
Carlisle, J. F. (2010). Effects of instruction in morphological awareness on literacy achievement: An integrative review. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 464–487. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.4.5. (PMID: 10.1598/RRQ.45.4.5)
Deacon, S. H., Benere, J., & Pasquarella, A. (2013). Reciprocal relationship: Children's morphological awareness and their reading accuracy across grades 2 to 3. Developmental Psychology, 49(6), 1113–1126. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029474.
Deacon, S. H., & Francis, K. A. (2017). How children become sensitive to the morphological structure of the words that they read. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1469. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01469. (PMID: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01469)
Diependaele, K. Morris, J, Serota, R. M., Bertrand, D., & Grainger, J. (2013). Breaking boundaries: Letter transpositions and morphological processing. Journal of Language and Cognitive Processes, 287, 988–1003. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.719082.
Diependaele, K., Sandra, D., & Grainger, J. (2009). Semantic transparency and masked morphological priming: The case of prefixed words. Memory & Cognition, 37, 895–908. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.6.895. (PMID: 10.3758/MC.37.6.895)
Dunabeitia, J. A., Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. (2014). Revisiting letter transpositions within and across morphemic boundaries. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 21(6), 1557–1575. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0609-2. (PMID: 10.3758/s13423-014-0609-2)
Dunn, L.M., & Dunn, D.M. (2007). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition. Pearson Education.
Gilbert, J. K., Goodwin, A. P., Compton, D. L., & Kearns, D. M. (2014). Multisyllabic word reading as a moderator of morphological awareness and reading comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(1), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413509966. (PMID: 10.1177/0022219413509966)
Grainger, J., Léte, B., Bertand, D., Dufau, S., & Ziegler, J. C. (2012). Evidence for multiple routes in learning to read. Cognition, 123, 280–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.01.003. (PMID: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.01.003)
Grainger, J., & Ziegler, J. C. (2011). A dual route approach to orthographic processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 2(54), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00054. (PMID: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00054)
Hendrix, P., & Sun, C. C. (2021). A word or two about nonwords: Frequency, semantic neighborhood density, and orthography-to-semantics consistency effects for nonwords in the lexical decision task. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 47(1), 157–183. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000819.
Heyer, V., & Kornishova, D. (2018). Semantic transparency affects morphological priming … eventually. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (hove), 71(5), 1112–1124. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1310915. (PMID: 10.1080/17470218.2017.1310915)
Jared, D., Jouravlev, O., & Joanisse, M. F. (2017). The effect of semantic transparency on the processing of morphologically derived words: Evidence from decision latencies and event-related potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 43(3), 422–450. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000316. (PMID: 10.1037/xlm0000316)
Joanisse, M. F., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1999). Impairments in verb morphology after brain injury: A connectionist model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96, 7592–7597. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.96.13.7592. (PMID: 10.1073/pnas.96.13.7592)
Kruk, R. S., & Bergman, K. (2013). The reciprocal relations between morphological processes and reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114(1), 10–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.09.014. (PMID: 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.09.014)
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2014). lmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package). R Package Version 2, 0–6. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest.
Law, J. M., Veispak, A., Vanderauwera, J., & Ghesquiere, P. (2018). Morphological awareness and visual processing of derivational morphology in high-functioning adults with dyslexia: An avenue to compensation? Applied Psycholinguistics, 39(3), 483–506. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716417000467. (PMID: 10.1017/s0142716417000467)
Lazaro, M., Illera, V., & Sainz, J. (2015). The suffix priming effect: Further evidence for an early morpho-orthographic segmentation process independent of its semantic content. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1031146. (PMID: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1031146)
Lupker, S. J., & Pexman, P. M. (2010). Making things difficult in lexical decision: The impact of pseudohomophones and transposed-letter nonwords on frequency and semantic priming effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(5), 1267–1289. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020125.
Manitoba Education and Training (2019). English language arts curriculum framework. A living document. Author. Retrieved from https://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/ela/framework/index.html.
Medeiros, J., & Dunabeitia, J. A. (2016). Not everybody sees the ness in the darkness: Individual differences in masked suffix priming. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1585. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01585. (PMID: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01585)
Quémart, P., & Casalis, S. (2015). Visual processing of derivational morphology in children with developmental dyslexia: Insights from masked priming. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 345–376. https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271641300026X. (PMID: 10.1017/S014271641300026X)
Quémart, P., Casalis, S., & Cole, P. (2011). The role of form and meaning in the processing of written morphology: A priming study in French developing readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109(4), 478–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.02.008. (PMID: 10.1016/j.jecp.2011.02.008)
Quémart, P., Gonnerman, L. M., Downing, J., & Deacon, S. H. (2018). The development of morphological representations in young readers: A cross-modal priming study. Developmental Science, 21(4), e12607. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12607. (PMID: 10.1111/desc.12607)
R Core Team. (2016). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/.
Rastle, K. (2019). The place of morphology in learning to read in English. Cortex, 116, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.02.008. (PMID: 10.1016/j.cortex.2018.02.008)
Rastle, K., & Davis, M. (2008). Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 942–971. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802069730. (PMID: 10.1080/01690960802069730)
Schunck, R. (2016). Cluster size and aggregated Level 2 variables in multilevel models. A cautionary note. Methods, 10(101), 97–108. https://doi.org/10.12758/mda.2016.005.
Spencer, M., Muse, A., Wagner, E. K., Petscher, Y., Schatschneider, C., Tighe, E. L., & Bishop, M. D. (2015). Examining the underlying dimensions of morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge. Reading and Writing, 28, 959–988. (PMID: 10.1007/s11145-015-9557-0)
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (2012). Test of word reading efficiency- Second Edition (TOWRE 2). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Wagner, R.K., Torgesen, J.K., Rashotte, C.A., & Pearson, N.A. (2013). CTOPP-2: Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing-Second Edition. Pro-Ed.
Wechsler, D. (2011). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence – Second Edition. Pearson Education.
Yap, M. J., Sibley, D. E., Balota, D. A., Ratcliff, R., & Rueckl, J. (2015). Responding to nonwords in the lexical decision task: Insights from the English Lexicon Project. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 41(3), 597–613. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000064. (PMID: 10.1037/xlm0000064)

Keywords: Developmental differences; Morpho-orthographic segmentation; Primed lexical decision; Struggling readers

Date Created: 20210907 Date Completed: 20220505 Latest Revision: 20220607

20231215

10.1007/s11881-021-00240-2

34491534