Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Summary Reading and writing are based on complex adaptive processes of perception, attention, and memory. A failure in learning to read can be due to a dysfunction of a single process, a number of serial processes, or to the interaction of parallel processes. This article focuses on the role of working memory functions for reading and writing. Evidence for a deficit of working memory in dyslexic children is reviewed. Furthermore, evidence is presented which shows that a training of special working memory functions leads to a critical improvement in reading and writing performance in dyslexic children. Key words: working memory, reading, writing, dyslexia, training methods The importance of working memory for reading and writing In order to perform reading and writing, perceptual information has to be maintained in working memory for a certain period to be available for active processing. At the same time, semantic, syntactic, orthographic and episodic information from long-term memory is activated to be merged with the perceptual input (see Figure 1). Baddeley and Hitch (1974) assume three components of working memory. They postulate two capacity-limited and modality-specific subsystems, that are, the phonological loop and the visual-spatial sketch pad. These subsystems are controlled by a third component, the so-called Central Executive. According to Cowan (1995) the functions of the Central Executive can be differentiated by their proportion of automatic and controlled executive processes. Automatic executive processes are to a great extent unconscious and can be performed with a low degree of mental effort. Such automatic executive processes occur, for instance, in automatic word recognition. Controlled executive processes, on the other hand, require the conscious analysis and synthesis of information. This is the case, for instance, in reading on the basis of grapheme-phoneme-correspondences (see Figure 1). Consequently, the question arises whether certain deficits in the efficiency of working memory may account for the problems in learning to read and to write. Deficits of working memory in dyslexic individuals Deficits of working memory in dyslexics have been studied using different paradigms and types of material both with auditory and visual stimuli. There are different results concerning visual-spatial deficits. So and Siegel (1997) have found deficits in Canadian and Chinese dyslexics in the free recall of word lists. Ellis (1981) reported four visual matching experiments. He did not find any group differences when the stimuli to be compared were shapes. However, when the stimuli were phonologically similar letters, significant group differences were found. Ellis interpreted these results as naming deficits. Vellutino's findings (1987) disagree with a general deficit of the visual working memory as well. His dyslexic children were able to reproduce unknown Hebrew words and letters just as well as children of the control group. If the word list was in English, however, the dyslexic children performed significantly poorer than the control group. Vellutino interpreted these findings as a deficit in serial recall of linguistic items in dyslexics. Barnea, Lamm, Epstein and Pratt (1994) found differences in Hebrew speaking dyslexics when they had to deal with visual lexical stimuli when presented as a series as well. In visual same-different tasks Willows, Corcos and Kershner (1993) used Hebrew letters, which were unknown to the dyslexic and the control children at the age level of 6, 7 and 8 years. The authors found differences in speed and accuracy which tend to be stronger in younger children of 6 years in comparison to 8 years. In a study by Witruk and Rosendahl (1999), the compensation of the deficits of visual working memory was proved. The authors used visual and phonological matching tasks as well as visual and phonological serial recall. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».