Presentation
Search Abstracts | Symposia | Slide Sessions | Poster Sessions | Poster Slams
Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) and word reading fluency in early school-aged children: An eye-tracking study
Poster D4 in Poster Session D with Social Hour, Friday, October 7, 5:30 - 7:15 pm EDT, Millennium Hall
Alisa Baron1, Alexia Martins1, Gavino Puggioni1, Vanessa Harwood1; 1The University of Rhode Island
Introduction. Rapid automatized naming (RAN) is the ability to accurately name familiar items as quickly as possible and is considered a significant predictor of reading fluency. RAN tasks require similar cognitive and linguistic processing when compared to word reading; specifically, RAN and word reading both require visual object recognition and speech production processes. Eye tracking is a sophisticated technology that allows for a fine-grained and natural record of word reading behavior in children and adults. Eye-tracking variables such as total time (defined as the sum of all fixations on a target word) and rereading duration (defined as the sum of all fixations except for those fixations made during the first time the target word is read) are thought to reflect different aspects of the reading process. Despite several studies on eye tracking and reading, few have explored the relationship between RAN performance and word reading as measured by eye tracking within early school-aged children. We investigate the relationship between the eye-tracking variables total time and rereading duration and RAN performance within 1st and 2nd graders who are at a critical point in reading development. Methods. Thirty-three monolingual 1st and 2nd graders (Meanage = 6.74 years, SDage = 0.65) participated in the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP-2) to obtain rapid letter naming (RLN) and rapid digit naming (RDN) raw scores. Eye movements were recorded using an EyeLink Portable Duo with a sampling rate of 500 Hz. Participants read twenty sentences with embedded target words aloud and then answered a yes-no comprehension question presented auditorily. Results. RLN performance predicted the total reading time of the target words for the entire group (p = .01); however, RDN was trending but not a significant predictor of total time (p = .06). Rereading duration and RAN variables were analyzed with zero-inflated gamma models as rereading duration includes zeroes (i.e., trials where the word was not refixated after reading the target word for the first time). Both RLN and RDN significantly predicted both the non-zero (p = .008 and p = .03 respectively) and zero values (p = .002 and p = .02 respectively) of rereading duration. This suggests that slower RLN and RDN times are associated with increased instances of rereading the target word. Conclusion. RLN predicted total reading time; however, RDN did not. RLN may be a more sensitive indicator of real word reading. Slower RAN performance for both RLN and RDN was associated with higher attempts of rereading duration. This indicates that children who were less automatic on RAN tasks were more likely to reread a target word embedded at the sentence level. Clinical implications of the association between rereading duration and RAN performance will be discussed.
Topic Areas: Reading, Development