Speech and non-speech stimuli in the prediction of early reading skills:the influence of processing demands and response-type

Purpose: Both phonological (speech) and auditory (non-speech) stimuli have been shown to predict early reading skills. However, previous studies have failed to control for the level of processing required by tasks administered across the two levels of stimuli. For example, phonological tasks typically tap explicit awareness e.g., phoneme deletion, while auditory tasks usually measure implicit awareness e.g., frequency discrimination. Therefore, the stronger predictive power of speech tasks may be due to their higher processing demands, rather than the nature of the stimuli. Method: The present study uses novel tasks that control for level of processing (isolation, repetition and deletion) across speech (phonemes and nonwords) and non-speech (tones) stimuli. 800 beginning readers at the onset of literacy tuition (mean age 4 years and 7 months) were assessed on the above tasks as well as word reading and letter-knowledge in the first part of a three time-point longitudinal study. Results: Time 1 results reveal a significantly higher association between letter-sound knowledge and all of the speech compared to non-speech tasks. Performance was better for phoneme than tone stimuli, and worse for deletion than isolation and repetition across all stimuli. Conclusions: Results are consistent with phonological accounts of reading and suggest that level of processing required by the task is less important than stimuli type in predicting the earliest stage of reading.

Phonological simplifications, apraxia of speech and the interaction between phonological and phonetic processing

Research on aphasia has struggled to identify apraxia of speech (AoS) as an independent deficit affecting a processing level separate from phonological assembly and motor implementation. This is because AoS is characterized by both phonological and phonetic errors and, therefore, can be interpreted as a combination of deficits at the phonological and the motoric level rather than as an independent impairment. We apply novel psycholinguistic analyses to the perceptually phonological errors made by 24 Italian aphasic patients. We show that only patients with relative high rate (>10%) of phonetic errors make sound errors which simplify the phonology of the target. Moreover, simplifications are strongly associated with other variables indicative of articulatory difficulties - such as a predominance of errors on consonants rather than vowels -but not with other measures - such as rate of words reproduced correctly or rates of lexical errors. These results indicate that sound errors cannot arise at a single phonological level because they are different in different patients. Instead, different patterns: (1) provide evidence for separate impairments and the existence of a level of articulatory planning/programming intermediate between phonological selection and motor implementation; (2) validate AoS as an independent impairment at this level, characterized by phonetic errors and phonological simplifications; (3) support the claim that linguistic principles of complexity have an articulatory basis since they only apply in patients with associated articulatory difficulties.