Individual Differences in Rapid Word Recognition and its Relation to Reading Ability Laura Halderman 1, Christine Chiarello 1, Suzanne Welcome 1, Christiana Leonard 2, & Janelle Julagay 1 1 University of California, Riverside 2 University of Florida Previous research has shown that the RVF gains access to the phonology and orthography of words early in word recognition (~30ms) (Halderman & Chiarello, 2005; Lavidor & Ellis, 2003) This same research suggests the LVF does not gain access to phonology, but it does demonstrate efficient orthographic processes early in word recognition (Halderman & Chiarello, 2005; Lavidor & Ellis, 2003) These studies did not include any measures of reading ability, so it is not known how individual differences contribute to rapid word recognition 12 variables were used to predict Percent Correct performance on a task designed to measure the earliest moments of word recognition Introduction Methods 100 participants (55 Females) Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised Word Identification Word Attack Passage Comprehension Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence Verbal, Performance and Full-Scale IQ estimates Handedness Preference Questionnaire Adult Reading History Questionnaire Eight Divided Visual Field Experiments Lexical Decision Participants decide if a letter string is an English word LVF and RVF trials Word Naming Participants name a word aloud CVF, LVF and RVF trials Nonword Naming Participants name a letter string that is not word in English LVF and RVF trials Masked Word Recognition Participants choose the word presented in between two rows of visual masks CVF, LVF and RVF trials Semantic Decision Participants decide if a word shown is Natural or Manmade LVF and RVF trials + + BOAT + + BOAT BEAT 60 ms 30 ms 60 ms 4000 ms Masked Word Recognition Multiple Regression Results for CVF trials Predictors DV - Percent Correct Variance of Sole Predictor Unique Variance (semi-partial 2 ) Betat-valuep value Word ID % Word Attack % Passage Comprehension % Verbal IQ Performance IQ Full-Scale IQ Lexical Decision VF AVG Word Naming 1 CVF Nonword Naming VF AVG Semantic Decision VF AVG <.05 n.s. <.05 n.s. <.05 n.s. Multiple Regression Results for LVF trials Predictors DV - Percent Correct Variance of Sole Predictor Unique Variance (semi-partial 2 ) Betat-valuep value Word ID % Word Attack % Passage Comprehension % Verbal IQ Performance IQ Full-Scale IQ Lexical Decision LVF Word Naming 1 LVF Nonword Naming LVF Semantic Decision LVF n.s. <.01 n.s. Predictors DV - Percent Correct Variance of Sole Predictor Unique Variance (semi-partial 2 ) Betat-valuep value Word ID % Word Attack % Passage Comprehension % Verbal IQ Performance IQ Full-Scale IQ Lexical Decision RVF Word Naming 1 RVF Nonword Naming RVF Semantic Decision RVF n.s. <.005 <.05 n.s. <.005 <.05 n.s. Multiple Regression Results for RVF trials This research was conducted under the support of the National Institute of Health grant DC , awarded to the second and fourth authors. Visual FieldR-squareF value (12, 84)p value CVF <.001 LVF <.001 RVF <.001 Conclusions Across all visual fields, Word Naming accounts for a significant amount of variance The processes underlying word recognition in Word Naming and Masked Word Recognition are highly correlated for all visual fields In both the Central and Right visual fields, basic measures of ability (IQ) and reading ability account for significant variance However, there are different significant predictors for central and right visual fields CVF - Word Identification and Verbal, Performance & Full-Scale IQ RVF - Word Attack and Passage Comprehension Additionally, performance on the Lexical Decision task was the strongest predictor for the RVF, suggesting the Left Hemisphere relies on the same rapid word decoding processes for Lexical Decision In conclusion, performance on Central visual field trials is not a simple combination of processes that occur in the Left and Right visual fields during rapid word recognition