A Literature Review and New Data Supporting an Interactive Account of Letter-By-Letter Reading Marlene Behrmann Carnegie Mellon University
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Carnegie Mellon University Research Showcase @ CMU Department of Psychology Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences 1998 A Literature Review and New Data Supporting an Interactive Account of Letter-by-Letter Reading Marlene Behrmann Carnegie Mellon University David C. Plaut Carnegie Mellon University James Nelson Carnegie Mellon University Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.cmu.edu/psychology This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences at Research Showcase @ CMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Department of Psychology by an authorized administrator of Research Showcase @ CMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 1998, 15 (1/2), 7- 51 A LITERATURE REVIEW AND NEW DATA SUPPORTING AN INTERACTIVE ACCOUNT OF LETTER-BY-LETTER READING Marlene Behrmann, David C. Plaut and James Nelson Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA We present a theoretical account of letter-by-letter reading (LBL) that reconciles discrepant findings associated with this form of acquired dyslexia. We claim that LBL reading is caused by a deficit that affects the normal activation of the orthographic representation of the stimulus. In spite of this lower-level deficit, the degraded orthographic information may be processed further, and lexical, semantic, and higher-order orthographic information may still influence the reading patterns of thesepatients. In support of our position, wepresent a review of 57 published cases of LBL reading in which we demonstrate that a peripheral deficit was evident in almostall of thepatients and that, simultaneously, strong effects of lexical/ semantic variables were observed on reading performance. We then go on to report findings from an empirical analysis of seven LBL readers in whom we document the joint effects of lexical variables (word frequency and imageability) and word length on naming latency. We argue that the reading performance of these patients reflects the residual functioning of the same interactive system that supported normal reading premorbidly. INTRODUCTION acquired in adulthood, take an abnormally long time to read even single words. This read- Letter-by-letter (LBL) reading is the term used ing deficit is typically associated with a lesion to define the reading pattern of premorbidly in the posterior portion of the dominant hemi- literate patients who, following brain damage sphere and sometimes, but not always, accom- Requests for reprints to Marlene Behrmann, Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890, USA (E-mail: [email protected]). This work was supported by NIMH FIRST awards to MB (MH54246-01) and to DCP (MH55628-01). We thank our colleagues, Dr. Sandra Black, Dr. Graham Ratcliff, and Dr. Jason Barton for referring the patients to us. We also thank Max Coltheart, Martha Farah, Marcel Kinsbourne, Jay McClelland, Marie Montant,Tatjana Nazir, Eleanor Saffran, Tim Shallice, and an anonymous reviewer for their insightful and constructive suggestions. Ó 1998 Psychology Press Ltd 7 BEHRMANN, PLAUT, NELSON panied by a lesion of white matter tracts such extent to produce such higher-order or later as the splenium of the corpus callosum or for- effects on performance. Two classes of theory ceps major (Damasio & Damasio, 1983). The have emerged, each of which emphasises one reading performance of such patients is char- of these two paradoxical findings. One class acterised by a “word length effect”, a signifi- argues that the deficit occurs early in process- cant increase in naming latency as a function ing, prior to the activation of an orthographic of the number of letters in a string. Times in the representation, and the early visual deficit ob- order of 1–3 seconds per additional letter in a served in LBL readers is consistent with this string have been measured for some LBL read- view. We will refer to such views as peripheral, ers, although there is considerable variability consistent with the Shallice and Warrington in reading speed across patients (Hanley & distinction in which impairments that ad- Kay, 1996). When the reading deficit manifests versely affect the attainment of the visual in the absence of other reading, writing, or word-form are considered to be peripheral spelling deficits, it is referred to as “pure (Shallice, 1988; Shallice & Warrington, 1980). alexia”. When other written language deficits By contrast, if the impairment is at a later stage, do accompany the LBL reading, they usually the dyslexia is classified as central. With respect consist of surface dyslexia (Bowers, Bub, & to LBLreading, central views maintain that the Arguin, 1996; Friedman & Hadley, 1992; Pat- deficit occurs after the activation of a well- terson & Kay, 1982) or surface dysgraphia specified orthographic description and thus (Behrmann & McLeod, 1995; Rapp & lexical and semantic information can still be Caramazza, 1991). Although less frequent, accessed. there are also reports of at least one case of What is probably evident, even from this deep dyslexia (Buxbaum & Coslett, 1996) and brief description, is that the peripheral and one case of phonological dyslexia (Friedman et central accounts of LBL readings are difficult al., 1993; Nitzberg-Lott, Friedman, & Line- to reconcile. Peripheral views cannot readily baugh, 1994) accompanying LBL reading. account for the lexical/ semantic findings and Two critical empirical findings concerning the central views do not explain the impaired LBL reading pose difficult challenges for theo- early visual processing in these patients. In the ries of this disorder. One finding is that these present paper, we will argue that both sets of patients are impaired at letter processing. A empirical findings can be accommodated second important finding is that some of these within a single, interactive reading system to patients have available to them lexical and which both hemispheres contribute. We first semantic information about the stimulus, as present in detail the findings for a low-level evidenced in their above-chance performance deficit in LBLreaders and then we consider the on lexical decision and semantic categorisation details of the lexical and semantic findings. tasks. This latter finding suggests that the vis- Thereafter, we examinenot only the peripheral ual stimulus has been processed to a sufficient and central accounts but also views that incor- 8 COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 1998, 15 (1/2) LETTER-BY-LETTER READING porate some aspects of both. Finally, we pre- Levine & Calvanio, 1978; Patterson & Kay, sent our account and, to substantiate it, we 1982; Schacter, Rapcsak, Rubens, Tharan, & review most of the published cases of LBL Laguna, 1990; see also Miozzo & Caramazza, reading and present new empirical data from this issue). Still others have maintained that seven LBL readers. LBL reading arises from insufficient atten- tional resources, thus forcing a serial, left–right strategy (Rapp & Caramazza, 1991), or from a problem in capacity or in switching visual at- KEY EMPIRICAL FINDINGS tention (Buxbaum & Coslett, 1996; Price & Humphreys, 1992). In a recent paper, one of us (Behrmann & Shallice, 1995) argued that the Impairment in Early Visual Processing core deficit is one of letter processing and that It is now well established that patients with the time to activate the representation for even LBL reading do not activate orthographic rep- a single letter is slow. Importantly, we argued resentations adequately; for example, many that the processing deficit is not spatially de- patients are adversely influenced by altera- termined, i.e. processing does not proceed tions of the surface characteristics of the stimu- from left to right of the array; rather, it has to lus (for example, poorer reading of script than do with serial order such that letters appearing print) and many make mostly visual errors in later in a string (even when all letters are pre- reading (for example, JAY ® “joy”). There are, sented at fixation in an RSVP paradigm) are however, several different explanations for the disadvantaged relative to letters appearing impairment in activating orthographic repre- earlier in the string. sentations. Some studies have claimed, for ex- It is important to note that many of these ample, that these patients suffer from a general peripheral views are not necessarily mutually perceptual deficit that impairs all forms of vis- exclusive. For example, although the critical ual processing (Behrmann, Nelson & Sekuler, deficit may be one of disordered perceptual 1998; Farah, 1991; Farah & Wallace, 1991; processing, an obvious consequence of such a Friedman & Alexander, 1984; Sekuler & deficit is an impairment in rapid and accurate Behrmann, 1996), although letter and word letter processing and identification (Behrmann recognition might perhaps be especially vul- & Shallice,1995; Sekuler & Behrmann, 1996). nerable (Farah, 1997). Others have claimed that What is central to all these peripheral views the impairment is specific to orthography and (labelled under the heading orthographic ac- impairs the identification of letters per se (Ar- cess view, [Bowers et al., 1996]), however, is guin & Bub, 1993; Karanth, 1985; Kay & Han- that the fundamental impairment is one of vis- ley, 1991; Reuter-Lorenz & Brunn, 1990), or ual processing, arising relatively early and pre- affects the rapid processing of multiple forms venting the derivation of an adequate in parallel