View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Orthographic Influences on Phonological Processing in Children with and without Reading Difficulties: An Eye-Tracking Study

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Orthographic Influences on Phonological Processing in Children with and without Reading Difficulties: An Eye-Tracking Study
Language: English
Authors: Lauren S. Baron, Anna M. Ehrhorn, Peter Shlanta, Jane Ashby, Bethany A. Bell, Suzanne M. Adlof (ORCID 0000-0002-0156-7231)
Source: Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2025 38(7):1925-1948.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 24
Publication Date: 2025
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) (DHHS/NIH)
Contract Number: R01D017156
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Orthographic Symbols, Phonology, Language Processing, Reading Difficulties, Eye Movements, Children, Phonological Awareness, Reading Skills, Pictorial Stimuli, Phonemes, Discrimination Learning
DOI: 10.1007/s11145-024-10567-y
ISSN: 0922-4777
1573-0905
Abstract: Phonological processing is an important contributor to decoding and spelling difficulties, but it does not fully explain word reading outcomes for all children. As orthographic knowledge is acquired, it influences phonological processing in typical readers. In the present study, we examined whether orthography affects phonological processing differently for children with current reading difficulties (RD), children with a history of reading difficulties who are currently presenting with typical word reading skills (Hx), and children with typical development and no history of reading difficulties (TD). School-aged children completed a phonological awareness task containing spoken words and pictures while eye movements were recorded. In this task, children had to pair a spoken stimulus word with one of four pictures that ended with the same sound. Within the task, stimulus-target picture pairs varied in the congruency and consistency of the orthographic and phonological mappings of their final consonant sounds. Eye movements revealed that children with typical word reading (the Hx and TD groups) showed better discrimination of the target from the foils compared to peers with underdeveloped word reading skills. All children were more accurate when stimulus-target pairs were congruent and consistent than when they were incongruent or inconsistent. Orthography plays an important role in the completion of phonological awareness tasks, even in the absence of written words and for children with a wide range of reading abilities. Results highlight the importance of considering orthography during interventions for phonological awareness and word reading.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1482260
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGGSt9lQd5yo9ZjIOcbFtRDAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDPCBOnFbsQkkjP2qyAIBEICBm1sIPjBnuv9J0QfgR45P9ceygEp4kQaw7WGQBw80I1W9IKpncH18TxM1KZFArxrBkzDgtEAgxqUGT229P-jl0aTrnd7X0GOq6adJxQWCznrION6Pm0gcvsvCTIKklPN4j7x2K6lBhg09TfmRAtySbYEeLpVDR-4y3nHzkyYJUZxmOqEAfAYZzhjRTEQlsMBfSmEbBLlzyqygCcuJ
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0187667264;2ap01sep.25;2025Sep03.06:43;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0187667264-1">Orthographic influences on phonological processing in children with and without reading difficulties: an eye-tracking study </title> <p>Phonological processing is an important contributor to decoding and spelling difficulties, but it does not fully explain word reading outcomes for all children. As orthographic knowledge is acquired, it influences phonological processing in typical readers. In the present study, we examined whether orthography affects phonological processing differently for children with current reading difficulties (RD), children with a history of reading difficulties who are currently presenting with typical word reading skills (Hx), and children with typical development and no history of reading difficulties (TD). School-aged children completed a phonological awareness task containing spoken words and pictures while eye movements were recorded. In this task, children had to pair a spoken stimulus word with one of four pictures that ended with the same sound. Within the task, stimulus-target picture pairs varied in the congruency and consistency of the orthographic and phonological mappings of their final consonant sounds. Eye movements revealed that children with typical word reading (the Hx and TD groups) showed better discrimination of the target from the foils compared to peers with underdeveloped word reading skills. All children were more accurate when stimulus-target pairs were congruent and consistent than when they were incongruent or inconsistent. Orthography plays an important role in the completion of phonological awareness tasks, even in the absence of written words and for children with a wide range of reading abilities. Results highlight the importance of considering orthography during interventions for phonological awareness and word reading.</p> <p>Keywords: Orthographic knowledge; Phonological processing; Eye tracking; Word reading; Reading difficulty; Psychology and Cognitive Sciences Psychology Cognitive Sciences</p> <p>Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-024-10567-y.</p> <hd id="AN0187667264-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Learning disabilities impact roughly 20% of school-aged children (Horowitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref1">21</reflink>]). The estimated prevalence of reading disabilities, such as dyslexia, varies based on diagnostic criteria in both research and practice (Adlof & Hogan, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref2">1</reflink>]). For many children, word reading difficulties persist into adulthood and can have lasting negative effects on reading comprehension, academic achievement, and social-emotional outcomes (e.g., Livingston et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref3">27</reflink>]; Willcutt et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref4">52</reflink>]). For others, word reading difficulties in childhood resolve with instruction and do not limit the attainment of academic and occupational success (e.g., Catts et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref5">14</reflink>]; Torppa et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref6">40</reflink>]). The mechanism by which some children overcome word reading difficulty is not well understood. However, the importance of robust orthographic knowledge for accurate and efficient word reading is becoming increasingly clear. In the present study, we examined the influence of orthography on phonological processing in children with different word reading abilities.</p> <p>Past studies of reading disabilities have identified core deficits in phonological processing as the primary reason for difficulty decoding or spelling written words (Snowling et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref7">38</reflink>]; Vellutino et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref8">44</reflink>]). Indeed, phonological deficits are pervasive among children with dyslexia and often persist into adulthood (Bruck, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref9">10</reflink>]; Wilson & Lesaux, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref10">53</reflink>]). However, phonological processing alone does not fully explain word reading outcomes for all people. There is evidence that phonological processing deficits in early childhood do not necessarily predict word reading abilities later in life (Pennington et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref11">32</reflink>]; Snowling et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref12">37</reflink>]; van Bergen et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref13">41</reflink>]). Many researchers have taken a multifactorial approach to understanding reading difficulties in children that includes skills such as oral language, rapid automatized naming, or executive function (Astle & Fletcher-Watson, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref14">5</reflink>]; Catts et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref15">15</reflink>]; Compton, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref16">17</reflink>]; Snowling et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref17">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>Increasingly, studies have considered the role of orthography in learning to read and spell. Orthographic knowledge is the understanding of how spoken words are represented in written form (Apel et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref18">3</reflink>]). It includes the knowledge of letter-sound correspondences, specific word spellings (e.g., <emph>hope</emph> vs. <emph>hoap</emph>), and positional constraints and regularities (e.g., <emph>tack</emph> vs. <emph>ckat</emph>). Orthographic knowledge is especially important in English because of the language's orthographic depth – or the inconsistency of letter-sound relationships. Recent meta-analyses show that on average, both children with dyslexia (Georgiou et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref19">19</reflink>]) and adults with a history of dyslexia (Reis et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref20">34</reflink>]) exhibit impaired orthographic knowledge compared to peers without reading difficulties. Importantly, however, Georgiou et al. ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref21">19</reflink>]) found larger between-group differences in orthographic knowledge when comparing children with dyslexia to age-matched peers versus younger, reading-matched peers, suggesting that reading experience also influences the acquisition of orthographic knowledge.</p> <p>The phonological-core variable-orthographic differences model (PCVOD) is a multiple-deficit model of dyslexia proposed by van der Leij and Morfidi ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref22">42</reflink>]). The PCVOD model posits that people with dyslexia have greater variability in orthographic knowledge than phonological processing skills, which accounts for heterogenous word reading profiles. In other words, orthographic knowledge may be a strength or weakness among individuals with word reading difficulties while phonological processing skills are most commonly found to be impaired. Van der Leij and Morfidi ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref23">42</reflink>]) propose that children with poor phonological processing skills <emph>and</emph> poor orthographic knowledge likely have an impaired mechanism for learning connections <emph>between</emph> representations (as explained by Seidenberg & McClelland's ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref24">36</reflink>]) triangle model), leading to persistent word reading deficits. On the other hand, the PCVOD model suggests that children with poor phonological processing skills, but relatively good orthographic knowledge, may benefit from the shared activation across representations and ultimately learn to read without difficulty (Bekebrede et al., 2009, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref25">6</reflink>]; van der Leij & Morfidi, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref26">42</reflink>]).</p> <p>In skilled readers, orthographic and phonological representations are tightly connected, such that one representation will activate the other (Johnston et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref27">24</reflink>]; McKague et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref28">28</reflink>]; Perfetti, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref29">33</reflink>]; Wegener et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref30">50</reflink>]). Seeing a written word can influence pronunciation, and also, hearing a spoken word can activate one or more possible spellings. Thus, the orthographic properties of words have been found to influence skilled readers' phonological processing even in purely auditory tasks. For example, Ziegler and Ferrand ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref31">55</reflink>]) found that French university students were faster and more accurate at making auditory lexical decisions about words in which the phonological rime was "consistent" and could only be spelled one way (e.g., <emph>bridge, smidge, fridge</emph>) versus when the rime had multiple, or "inconsistent" spellings (e.g., <emph>thumb, hum, some</emph>).</p> <p>More recently, studies have demonstrated that even novel spoken words can activate orthographic representations (Johnston et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref32">24</reflink>]; McKague et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref33">28</reflink>]; Wegener et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref34">50</reflink>]). For example, Wegener and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref35">50</reflink>]) exposed skilled adult readers to novel spoken words before testing their orthographic representations in a lexical decision task. Participants were faster to respond to novel words presented with predictable spellings compared to unpredictable spellings. This suggests they had formed expectations about the novel words' orthography based on the phonological forms. In combination, these findings support the idea that orthography is activated without conscious effort during phonologically based tasks in skilled adult readers.</p> <p>Less is known about when and how orthography influences phonological processing in children in earlier stages of literacy development. However, increasing evidence suggests that developing readers also activate orthographic knowledge when exposed to phonological forms (Beyersmann et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref36">7</reflink>]; Castles et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref37">13</reflink>]; Ventura et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref38">45</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref39">46</reflink>]; Wegener et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref40">48</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref41">49</reflink>]). This has been examined through manipulation of orthographic consistency of spoken words alone and written words following exposure to spoken words. For example, Castles and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref42">12</reflink>]) found that 10-year-old children with typical development performed better on phonological awareness tasks when the stimuli had consistent letter-sound correspondences compared to when they did not. In sum, these studies corroborate findings that orthographic knowledge influences phonological processing, not only in skilled adult readers, but also in young readers with emerging and basic word reading skills.</p> <p>There is some evidence that children with word reading difficulties do not experience the same level of orthographic influence as their peers with typical development (Bruck, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref43">10</reflink>]; Landerl et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref44">25</reflink>]; van der Leij & van Daal, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref45">43</reflink>]). For example, Landerl and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref46">25</reflink>]) administered a series of phonological awareness tasks to school-aged children with dyslexia, and two control groups of typically developing, chronological-age-matched or spelling-age-matched peers. Performance for spoken words with phonologically transparent spellings (e.g., <emph>ham</emph>) was compared to that of spoken rhyming words with silent letter spellings (e.g., <emph>lam</emph><emph><uline>b</uline></emph>). Children with dyslexia made fewer errors in the silent letter condition than both control groups, suggesting they were not influenced by orthography to the same extent. On the other hand, children with dyslexia made more phoneme segmentation errors than the other two groups, reflecting their deficits in phonological processing. Landerl and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref47">25</reflink>]) concluded that children with dyslexia have a weaker connection between phonological and orthographic representations that, depending on the spelling pattern, can result in better or worse performance on phonological processing tasks. As children's literacy skills develop, all errors are not equal, and some errors may represent areas of strength versus weakness.</p> <p>In summary, the literature suggests that phonological and orthographic skills have bidirectional relationships, and there is longstanding evidence highlighting the importance of explicit instruction in alphabetics and phonological awareness for developing readers (Bus & van IJzendoorn, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref48">11</reflink>]; National Reading Panel, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref49">31</reflink>]). However, the role of more fine-grained orthographic knowledge in phonological processing tasks for developing readers has not been studied. There is a need to better understand the ways in which orthography influences, and possibly supports, phonological processing in children with word reading impairments.</p> <hd id="AN0187667264-3">The present study</hd> <p>We examined the influence of orthography on phonological processing in school-aged children with differing word reading abilities and developmental trajectories. We compared children with both historical and current word reading difficulties such as dyslexia (RD), children with a history of word reading difficulties who are currently presenting with typical word reading abilities (Hx), and children with typical development (TD). In this study, children with RD and Hx were recruited from a single private school serving children with learning disabilities. Narrowing our recruitment source enabled us to partially constrain the variability in reading experience between the RD and Hx groups. The Hx group will provide a unique perspective on children who have a similar educational profile and experience as the RD group, but who have overcome a significant word reading difficulty according to current performance on norm-referenced tests (see Method). We administered norm-referenced measures of reading and related skills and an experimental phonological awareness task with eye tracking. Most phonological awareness tasks are scored based on accuracy, so they capture whether children respond correctly, but not how easy or difficult it was for them to do so. By recording eye fixation location and duration during a phoneme-matching picture paradigm, Ashby et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref50">4</reflink>]) measured children's real-time phonological processing as they matched pictures of spoken words that ended with the same last sound.</p> <p>In the present study, we adapted the phoneme-matching picture paradigm by systematically manipulating the phoneme-grapheme mappings between spoken word stimuli and targets in the task. This approach is similar to behavioral studies investigating the influence of orthography on phonological awareness in adults (e.g., Ziegler & Ferrand, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref51">55</reflink>]). However, the present study used eye tracking to measure the influence of orthography on children's real-time phonological processing of item options prior to their response. When a child looks at a response option longer or more frequently than the other options, it suggests they are strongly considering choosing that response option. Analyzing the number and duration of fixations on the target relative to the foils provides an indication of how easy it was for the children to discriminate the target from the foils in different conditions. A substantial research literature supports using eye tracking to measure lexical processes in children (e.g., Blythe et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref52">8</reflink>]; Jared et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref53">23</reflink>]; Nation & Castles, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref54">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>Our general hypothesis was that children would demonstrate better discrimination of the correct response on trials where the orthography of the stimulus and target were congruent and consistent than compared to trials where it was incongruent or inconsistent. We expected this pattern to appear for both accuracy and eye-movement measures (e.g., increased number and duration of fixations on target compared to foils). We also hypothesized that children with typical word reading development (i.e., TD group) would show higher accuracy on the task overall compared to children with current word reading difficulties. If children with poor wording reading abilities have impaired connections between phonological and orthographic representations as hypothesized by Landerl et al. ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref55">25</reflink>]), then we would further predict that the TD group would have a greater influence of orthography. This would be evidenced by a significant interaction between group and condition involving the TD and the RD groups. Including the Hx group allowed us to examine whether the influence of orthography depends more on a history of word reading difficulties or current abilities. Overall, the results of this study will contribute to our understanding of the role that orthography plays in children's phonological awareness performance, which has important implications for the focus of literacy assessment and interventions for children with word reading difficulties.</p> <hd id="AN0187667264-4">Method</hd> <p>Child participants completed a battery of norm-referenced reading and language assessments as well as an experimental eye-tracking task. The battery lasted approximately three hours and occurred over 1–3 study sessions, which were completed in a quiet room at the participants' school, the research lab, or in a van designed for eye-tracking data collection. Data collection sessions were video- and audio-recorded for offline scoring and reliability checking. Children received gift cards to acknowledge their participation. Parents or guardians provided informed consent before initiating data collection. All study procedures were approved by the University of South Carolina Institutional Review Board.</p> <hd id="AN0187667264-5">Participants</hd> <p>Participants included 71 children (42 males, 29 females) enrolled in grades 3 through 7 (mean age = 10.7 years, range 8.5–13.7 years). Based on parent report, all participants spoke English as their first and only language, and had no hearing impairment, uncorrected vision impairment, or other medical or developmental history that would interfere with speech or language development. Race and ethnicity data were also collected on the parent questionnaire according to guidelines from the National Institutes of Health (2015): 65 participants identified as White, 1 identified as Asian, 2 identified as Black or African American, and 3 identified as Other; additionally, 3 participants identified as Hispanic or Latino.</p> <p>Children were recruited for the reading difficulty groups (RD and Hx) from a private school serving children with learning disabilities. School enrollment required a primary diagnosis of language-based learning difficulties from an independent neuropsychologist, with most children receiving a diagnosis of dyslexia. Children were recruited for the TD group from recently completed studies (<emph>n</emph> = 14; 4 from Adlof et al. ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref56">2</reflink>]) and 10 from Hendricks et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref57">20</reflink>]) and community advertisements (<emph>n</emph> = 9).</p> <p>Group assignments in the present study were determined using composite scores from two standardized assessments, the Basic Skills Cluster of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test, Third Edition (WRMT-3; Woodcock, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref58">54</reflink>]) and the Test of Word Reading Efficiency, Second Edition (TOWRE-2; Torgesen et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref59">39</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref60">1</reflink>] Children recruited from the private school were classified as having a history of reading difficulties (Hx; <emph>n</emph> = 18) if their current scores on both word reading assessments were within normal limits (SS > 85). They were classified as currently having reading difficulties (RD; <emph>n</emph> = 30) if they achieved a SS ≤ 85 on either one of the word reading assessments.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref61">2</reflink>] Children in the TD group (<emph>n</emph> = 23) had to achieve a SS > 85 on both the WRMT-3 and TOWRE-2 and had no history of prior reading impairment according to parent report on the initial intake questionnaire and/or all available data from prior studies they completed. Scores for each of the classification measures are presented by group in Table 1. The RD group scored lower than the other two groups on all word reading subtests. Children in the Hx and TD groups achieved similar scores on most word reading subtests, with the exception of the WRMT-3 Word Identification subtest (Hx < TD).</p> <p>Table 1 Descriptive statistics and ANOVA results for age and norm-referenced assessments</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" colspan="4"><p>Typical Development; TD(<italic>N</italic> = 23)</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2" /><th align="left" colspan="6"><p>History of Reading Difficulties; Hx(<italic>N</italic> = 18)</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2" /><th align="left" colspan="6"><p>Current Reading Difficulties; RD(<italic>N</italic> = 30)</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2" /><th align="left" colspan="5"><p>ANOVA Results</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p><italic>N</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>M</italic></p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></th><th align="left" colspan="2" /><th align="left" colspan="2"><p><italic>N</italic></p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p><italic>M</italic></p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></th><th align="left" colspan="2" /><th align="left" colspan="2"><p><italic>N</italic></p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p><italic>M</italic></p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></th><th align="left" colspan="2" /><th align="left" colspan="2"><p><italic>F</italic></p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Group Comparison</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Word Reading Accuracy</p><p>WRMT-3 Basic Skills Composite</p></td><td align="left"><p>21</p></td><td align="left"><p>105.14</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>12.19</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>18</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>96.11</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>8.37</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>30</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>81.07</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>8.75</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>38.84</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>TD > Hx > RD</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Word ID (real words)</p></td><td align="left"><p>21</p></td><td align="left"><p>106.43</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>13.52</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>18</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>96.17</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>8.18</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>30</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>80.80</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>8.66</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>39.90</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>TD > Hx > RD</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Word Attack (nonwords)</p></td><td align="left"><p>21</p></td><td align="left"><p>103.48</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>12.14</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>18</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>96.61</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>9.57</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>30</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>83.40</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>12.41</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>19.51</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>TD = Hx > RD</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Word Reading Fluency</p><p>TOWRE-2 Composite</p></td><td align="left"><p>23</p></td><td align="left"><p>101.91</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>10.73</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>17</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>94.88</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>6.78</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>29</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>75.41</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>7.84</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>64.70</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>TD > Hx > RD</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> SWE (real words)</p></td><td align="left"><p>23</p></td><td align="left"><p>102.35</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>11.12</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>17</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>95.71</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>7.10</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>29</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>77.41</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>8.83</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>50.00</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>TD = Hx > RD</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> PDE (nonwords)</p></td><td align="left"><p>23</p></td><td align="left"><p>101.09</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>11.70</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>17</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>94.06</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>7.76</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>29</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>75.83</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>9.43</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>45.06</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>TD = Hx > RD</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Phonological Awareness</p><p>CTOPP-2 Composite</p></td><td align="left"><p>23</p></td><td align="left"><p>91.48</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>13.19</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>17</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>89.47</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>11.46</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>27</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>90.04</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>13.79</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>0.13</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>0.876</p></td><td align="left"><p>==</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Elision <sup>a</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>23</p></td><td align="left"><p>9.83</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>2.59</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>18</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>7.56</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>2.2</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>29</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>7.28</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>2.48</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>7.76</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>TD > Hx = RD</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Blending Words <sup>a</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>23</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.78</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>2.59</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>17</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>9.53</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>2.50</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>28</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>8.96</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>3.16</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>2.07</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>0.134</p></td><td align="left"><p>==</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Phoneme Isolation <sup>a</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>23</p></td><td align="left"><p>8.09</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>2.75</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>17</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>7.76</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>2.91</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>27</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>8.81</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>2.51</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>0.90</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>0.412</p></td><td align="left"><p>==</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Spelling</p><p> TWS-5</p></td><td align="left"><p>23</p></td><td align="left"><p>108.78</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>11.58</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>15</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>94.80</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>10.32</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>28</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>78.79</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>11.11</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>49.35</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>TD > Hx > RD</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Language</p><p> CELF-5 RS subtest <sup>a</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>23</p></td><td align="left"><p>11.39</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>3.00</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>17</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>9.35</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>2.29</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>30</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>8.50</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>2.80</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>7.30</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>TD = Hx</p><p>TD > RD</p><p>Hx = RD</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Nonverbal Intelligence</p><p> TONI-4</p></td><td align="left"><p>21</p></td><td align="left"><p>107.57</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>12.50</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>18</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>105.50</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>8.31</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>29</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>105.03</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>9.74</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>0.39</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>0.680</p></td><td align="left"><p>==</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Chronological age (months)</p></td><td align="left"><p>23</p></td><td align="left"><p>121.22</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>15.56</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>18</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>133.00</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>13.46</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>30</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>130.33</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>17.70</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2" /><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>3.25</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>0.045</p></td><td align="left"><p>==</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note </emph> <emph>N</emph> = number, <emph>M</emph> = mean, <emph>SD</emph> = standard deviation. Unless specified, values for <emph>M</emph> and <emph>SD</emph> are standard scores. Group differences on the norm-referenced assessments were examined with one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs), with pairwise comparisons using Tukey's HSD to maintain a Type I error rate of 0.05 for each model. WRMT-3 = Woodcock Reading Mastery Test, Third Edition (Woodcock, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref62">54</reflink>]); TOWRE-2 = Test of Word Reading Efficiency, Second Edition (Torgesen et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref63">39</reflink>]); SWE = Sight Word Efficiency subtest; PDE = Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest; CTOPP-2 = Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing, Second Edition (Wagner et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref64">47</reflink>]); TWS-5 = Test of Written Spelling, Fifth Edition (Larsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref65">26</reflink>]); CELF-5 = Comprehensive Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, Fifth Edition (Wiig et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref66">51</reflink>]); RS = Recalling Sentences subtest; TONI-4 = Test of Nonverbal Intelligence, Fourth Edition (Brown et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref67">9</reflink>]). <sups>a</sups> These measures yielded scaled scores (<emph>M</emph> = 10, <emph>SD</emph> = 3)</p> <p>We also administered several other norm-referenced measures to further describe the reading and language profiles of each group. These data are also presented in Table 1. Notably, there was a significant difference in age across reading ability groups. However, none of the pairwise comparisons of age between individual groups were statistically significant, and there were no statistically significant differences in grade level between groups [<emph>χ2</emph> (<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref68">8</reflink>, _I_N_i_ = 71) = 13.43, <emph>p</emph> =.098]. Because the TD group is the youngest, it is unlikely that differences in age would explain better reading ability. Nevertheless, age was included as a covariate in all statistical analyses of the experimental phonological awareness tasks.</p> <hd id="AN0187667264-6">Post-hoc reading services questionnaire</hd> <p>Given the recruitment process for our sample, it is possible that the groups differed in the kind of reading experiences and instruction received, which could contribute to differences in orthographic knowledge. We developed a brief questionnaire to gather information about the number of reading supports children had received (e.g., participation in summer reading camps, school-based response to intervention programs, home-based computer interventions, etc.) and the number of years they had received them. This questionnaire was sent to the parents of all participants after data collection had been completed. Parents received an additional gift card for completing the survey.</p> <p>The response rate was low (48%) primarily due to minimal responses from the TD group (<emph>N</emph> = 7/23) with a higher number of responses from the other reading difficulty groups (Hx = 13/18; RD = 14/30). Thus, we conducted analyses focused on potential differences between the Hx and RD groups. Parents' responses indicated that children in the Hx and RD groups had been enrolled in the private school for children with reading disabilities for similar lengths of time (Hx mean = 3.56, <emph>SD = 0.78;</emph> RD mean = 3.54, <emph>SD =</emph> 1.01; <emph>t</emph> = 0.52, <emph>p =</emph>.607). Furthermore, the mean number of additional reading services accessed by children in the Hx and RD groups was not significantly different (Hx mean = 3.31, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.03; RD mean = 2.43, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.23; <emph>t</emph> = 2.01, <emph>p =</emph>.055). However, the cumulative amount of reading services (i.e., the total number of years that each type of service was received) was significantly greater for the Hx group than the RD group (Hx mean = 9.00, <emph>SD</emph> = 2.92; RD mean = 6.43, <emph>SD =</emph> 3.44; <emph>t =</emph> 2.09, <emph>p</emph> =.047). Taken together, these data suggest that children in the Hx group may have received a greater amount of supportive reading instruction than children in the RD group. Given the low response rate and retrospective nature of the questionnaire, this information was not analyzed further.</p> <hd id="AN0187667264-7">Phonological awareness task</hd> <p>A phoneme-matching picture task was adapted from Ashby et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref69">4</reflink>]) to assess participants' ability to match the final phonemes in spoken words under different congruency and consistency parameters. There were 36 total trials across three conditions. In each trial, participants saw 4 pictures of familiar objects in a 2 × 2 grid on a computer screen (see Fig. 1). Each picture was displayed at a set size of 250 × 350 pixels and surrounded by an invisible boundary that denoted the interest area (IA) for recorded eye-movement data. First, children heard a spoken label for each image as the image was highlighted on the screen. Then, children heard the sentence, "Click on the picture that ends with the same last sound as [stimulus]." A stimulus photo appeared at the top of the screen while its spoken label was played. Finally, children clicked 1 of the 4 options using the computer mouse. The order of items was randomized across trials with items from all three conditions presented in a single block. The correct answer in each trial was the picture that ended with the same phoneme as the stimulus word. Prior to initiating the task with eye tracking, participants completed two practice trials administered with PowerPoint slides. The first practice trial was read aloud by the assessor, and audio for the second was presented by the computer. The assessor provided corrective feedback for both practice trials. For correct responses, the assessor said a version of: "Yes, <emph>pig</emph> and <emph>frog</emph> have the same last sound, /g/." For incorrect responses, the assessor said, "Not quite, the last sound in <emph>frog</emph> is /g/. Let's listen to the words again: <emph>pig</emph>, <emph>gum</emph>, <emph>pot</emph>, <emph>rock</emph>. <emph>Pig</emph> and <emph>frog</emph> have the same last sound, /g/. The correct answer is <emph>pig.</emph>" Incorrect practice trials were repeated to verify understanding before moving onto the task programmed with eye tracking.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Phonological Awareness Task Presentation. The beginning of a trial is shown in the left panel, in which children heard a spoken label for each image as it was highlighted on the screen followed by a prompt, i.e., "Moon, net, lake, swing. Which picture ends with the same last sound as...". The right panel shows the stimulus picture appearing, and the audio recording of its label played simultaneously "..lion"</p> <p>Three conditions that manipulated orthographic congruency and consistency allowed us to investigate the influence of orthography on phonological processing. Congruency refers to whether a phoneme is spelled with the same (congruent) or different (incongruent) graphemes <emph>within a pair of words</emph>. Consistency refers to whether a particular spelling is the same (consistent) or different (inconsistent) <emph>within the task</emph>. Note that consistency was manipulated for experimental purposes, but it is also constrained more generally by the number of possible spellings at the ends of words in the English language. In the congruent-consistent condition (10 trials), the stimulus and target had the same final phoneme and grapheme, and these phoneme-grapheme pairings did not differ throughout the task (e.g., Stimulus: lio<emph>n</emph>; Target: moo<emph>n</emph>). In the congruent-inconsistent condition (14 trials), the stimulus and target had the same final phoneme and grapheme within the trial (e.g., Stimulus: mo<emph>ss</emph>; Target: gla<emph>ss</emph>) but a different phoneme-grapheme pairing in another trial. Specifically, in the incongruent-inconsistent condition (12 trials), the same phoneme (/s/) would be associated with different graphemes (e.g., Stimulus: gra<emph>ss</emph>; Target: i<emph>ce</emph>). The degree to which orthography influenced phonological processing can be determined by the difference between performance on congruent-consistent trials compared to that of congruent-inconsistent or incongruent-inconsistent trials.[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref70">3</reflink>] See Table 2 for example stimulus-target pairs and a description of foil types.</p> <p>Table 2 Example Stimulus-Target Word Pairs with Foils</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Condition</p></th><th align="left"><p>Stimulus</p></th><th align="left"><p>Target</p></th><th align="left"><p>Foil 1</p></th><th align="left"><p>Foil 2</p></th><th align="left"><p>Foil 3</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Congruent-Consistent</p></td><td align="left"><p>lion</p></td><td align="left"><p>moon</p></td><td align="left"><p>net</p></td><td align="left"><p>lake</p></td><td align="left"><p>swing</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Congruent -Inconsistent</p></td><td align="left"><p>moss</p></td><td align="left"><p>glass</p></td><td align="left"><p>sun</p></td><td align="left"><p>milk</p></td><td align="left"><p>knife</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Incongruent-Inconsistent</p></td><td align="left"><p>piece</p></td><td align="left"><p>cross</p></td><td align="left"><p>school</p></td><td align="left"><p>paint</p></td><td align="left"><p>cliff</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note</emph> There were three foil types within each trial. Foil Type 1 had the same <emph>first</emph> phoneme/grapheme as the stimulus word's <emph>final</emph> phoneme/grapheme (e.g., Stimulus: lion; Foil 1: net). The only exception to this was when the sound would not be legal in word initial position. For example, /ks/ at the end of "blocks" never appears in word initial position, so Foil Type 1 would be "ski" instead. Foil Type 2 had the same <emph>first</emph> phoneme/grapheme as the stimulus word's <emph>first</emph> phoneme/grapheme (e.g., Stimulus: lion; Foil 2: lake). In Foil Type 3, the foil's last phoneme varied from the stimulus word's last phoneme by one feature (i.e., place, manner, voicing), which also changes the spelling (e.g., Stimulus: lion; Foil 3: swing). There were no significant differences between conditions in the frequency, phonotactic probability, and neighborhood density of the stimulus and target words (e.g., Zeno et al., 1995; Vaden et al., 2009)</p> <hd id="AN0187667264-8">Eye-tracking apparatus & procedure</hd> <p>The phonological awareness task was programmed in Experiment Builder software for use with a desktop mounted EyeLink 1000 Plus eye tracker in remote mode (SR Research, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada). Monocular (right eye) movements were recorded continuously at a sampling rate of 500 Hz. The experiment was displayed on an LCD ASUS VG248QE monitor that was 24" (1920 × 1080) screen with 1ms response time and 144 Hz refresh rate. The screen brightness was set to 60% for optimal pupil dilation during eye tracking.</p> <p>Participants sat straight ahead, 60 cm from the screen that was adjusted in height to provide a 10-degree visual angle. This was confirmed to be sufficient when participants completed a 9-point multiple line calibration procedure with maximum error set at 1.0 degree prior to starting the eye-tracking tasks. Trials began when the child fixated on a drift correct target that confirmed correct calibration. Recalibration occurred as needed on a trial-by-trial basis. Trials ended when the child clicked the mouse on their response choice. Eye movements were recorded from the onset of the stimulus word until the mouse click that ended the trial.</p> <hd id="AN0187667264-9">Eye-tracking inclusion criteria and outcome measures</hd> <p>Inclusion criteria were implemented using best practice guidelines for eye-tracking data set cleaning procedures (see Eskenazi, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref71">18</reflink>]). Whereas accuracy analyses included data from all participants and trials, we established specific criteria to minimize the impact of guessing on the eye movement measures, which decreases the chance of Type 1 error. To increase the likelihood that participants understood the task, we included data from participants who responded accurately on at least 67% of the items in the eye-tracking analysis. Twelve participants (3 TD, 2 Hx, 7 RD) did not meet this inclusion threshold. To examine processes that occur as students work toward the correct answer, we only analyzed correct trials. Additionally, individual trials were excluded if the participant did not fixate on each picture at least once (7 total trials). Following these cleaning steps, the eye-tracking data analyses included 88% of all accurate trials from all participants in the full study.</p> <p>Our analyses considered <emph>fixation count</emph> (the total number of times an interest area was viewed) and <emph>dwell time</emph> (the total amount of time spent viewing an interest area, measured in milliseconds). As a measure of how well the participants were able to discriminate the target from the distractor options, we analyzed (a) percent of fixations on the target versus the stimulus and foils, and (b) percent dwell time on the target versus the stimulus and foils.</p> <hd id="AN0187667264-10">Statistical analysis</hd> <p>Data from the experimental phonological awareness task were analyzed using linear mixed effects (LME) models. Separate models were estimated for each of the study outcomes (accuracy, percent fixations on target, percent dwell time on target), yet all models contained the same predictors: group (RD, Hx, TD), experimental condition (congruent-consistent, congruent-inconsistent, incongruent-inconsistent), and age, which was centered around the mean. To evaluate pairwise comparisons between all three groups and conditions, we estimated models four times, changing the referents. Each LME model was estimated using maximum likelihood with Satterthwaite degrees of freedom to account for the small sample size, which in turn helps control Type 1 error rates when estimating LMEs with smaller samples. First, for each outcome, we estimated interaction models to determine if the relationship between group membership and each outcome (i.e., overall accuracy across trials; percent fixations on target on each trial; percent dwell time on target on each trial) differed by experimental condition. If there were no statistically significant interactions, we estimated main effect models for each outcome. During this process we also examined changes in model fit, using the -2LL and likelihood ratio tests (LRT) for each outcome. Supplemental table S1 presents the -2LL values and LRT comparing the main effect and interaction models for each outcome variable. In all instances, the main effects models exhibited better fit than the interaction models. Therefore, we focus on the main effect models in the results below and report the interaction models for each outcome in supplemental materials (Supplemental Tables S2-S4). Data analyses were conducted in SAS (v9.4; SAS software, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref72">35</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187667264-11">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187667264-12">Phonological awareness task accuracy</hd> <p>Descriptive statistics for accuracy (percent correct) on the phonological awareness task are presented by group and condition in Table 3, and the results of the main effects models are reported in Table 4. These models indicated a significant effect of condition, but no significant effect of group or age. Compared to the congruent-consistent condition, participants were less accurate in both the congruent-inconsistent condition [<emph>b</emph> = -6.12, <emph>p</emph> <.001] and the incongruent-inconsistent condition [<emph>b</emph> = -16.01, <emph>p</emph> <.001]. Additionally, participants were more accurate in the congruent-inconsistent condition than the incongruent-inconsistent condition [<emph>b</emph> = 9.89, <emph>p</emph> <.001].</p> <p>Table 3 Descriptive statistics for accuracy (i.e., percent correct), percent fixations on the target, and percent dwell time on target on the phonological awareness task</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Dependent Variable</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Condition</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Typical development; TD</p><p>(<italic>N</italic> = 23)</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>History of reading difficulties; Hx</p><p>(<italic>N</italic> = 18)</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Current reading difficulties; RD</p><p>(<italic>N</italic> = 30)</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p><italic>M</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>M</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>M</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Accuracy</p><p>(Percent Correct)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Congruent-Consistent</p></td><td align="left"><p>88.26</p></td><td align="left"><p>18.25</p></td><td align="left"><p>84.44</p></td><td align="left"><p>15.04</p></td><td align="left"><p>80.67</p></td><td align="left"><p>22.73</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Congruent-Inconsistent</p></td><td align="left"><p>82.30</p></td><td align="left"><p>16.38</p></td><td align="left"><p>79.76</p></td><td align="left"><p>14.34</p></td><td align="left"><p>73.57</p></td><td align="left"><p>18.58</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Incongruent-Inconsistent</p></td><td align="left"><p>71.01</p></td><td align="left"><p>19.76</p></td><td align="left"><p>71.76</p></td><td align="left"><p>18.11</p></td><td align="left"><p>63.61</p></td><td align="left"><p>23.21</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Percent Fixation</p><p>on Target</p></td><td align="left"><p>Congruent-Consistent</p></td><td align="left"><p>31.08</p></td><td align="left"><p>12.34</p></td><td align="left"><p>30.38</p></td><td align="left"><p>11.96</p></td><td align="left"><p>28.51</p></td><td align="left"><p>11.38</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Congruent-Inconsistent</p></td><td align="left"><p>30.01</p></td><td align="left"><p>12.36</p></td><td align="left"><p>30.99</p></td><td align="left"><p>12.09</p></td><td align="left"><p>27.15</p></td><td align="left"><p>11.50</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Incongruent-Inconsistent</p></td><td align="left"><p>29.36</p></td><td align="left"><p>10.76</p></td><td align="left"><p>28.13</p></td><td align="left"><p>9.84</p></td><td align="left"><p>26.92</p></td><td align="left"><p>10.89</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Percent Dwell Time</p><p>on Target</p></td><td align="left"><p>Congruent-Consistent</p></td><td align="left"><p>34.44</p></td><td align="left"><p>14.74</p></td><td align="left"><p>32.83</p></td><td align="left"><p>13.64</p></td><td align="left"><p>29.16</p></td><td align="left"><p>11.88</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Congruent-Inconsistent</p></td><td align="left"><p>33.38</p></td><td align="left"><p>14.54</p></td><td align="left"><p>32.86</p></td><td align="left"><p>13.46</p></td><td align="left"><p>29.20</p></td><td align="left"><p>12.92</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Incongruent-Inconsistent</p></td><td align="left"><p>32.97</p></td><td align="left"><p>13.72</p></td><td align="left"><p>29.82</p></td><td align="left"><p>11.50</p></td><td align="left"><p>28.81</p></td><td align="left"><p>11.55</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 4 Main effects models for accuracy (i.e., percent correct) on the experimental phonological awareness task</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" colspan="4"><p>Model A: TD and CC as Referents</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Model B: TD and IN as Referents</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Model C: RD and CC as Referents</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Model D: RD and IN as Referents</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Independent Variables</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Estimate</p></th><th align="left"><p>Standard Error</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Estimate</p></th><th align="left"><p>Standard Error</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Estimate</p></th><th align="left"><p>Standard Error</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Estimate</p></th><th align="left"><p>Standard Error</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Fixed Effects</p></td><td align="left" colspan="13" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Intercept</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>88.28</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.77</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>72.27</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.77</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>79.88</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.25</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>63.87</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.25</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Age</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>0.05</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.13</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.676</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.05</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.13</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.676</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.05</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.13</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.676</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.05</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.13</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.676</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Group</p></td><td align="left" colspan="13" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> TD</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p><italic>Referent</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>8.40</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.83</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.087</p></td><td align="left"><p>8.40</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.83</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.087</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Hx</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>-2.50</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.54</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.653</p></td><td align="left"><p>-2.50</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.54</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.653</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.90</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.06</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.248</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.90</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.06</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.248</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> RD</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>-8.40</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.83</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.087</p></td><td align="left"><p>-8.40</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.83</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.087</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Referent</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Condition</p></td><td align="left" colspan="13" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> CC</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p><italic>Referent</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>16.01</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.69</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Referent</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>16.01</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.69</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> CI</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>-6.12</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.69</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>9.89</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.69</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>-6.12</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.69</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>9.89</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.69</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> IN</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>-16.01</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.69</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Referent</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>-16.01</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.69</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Referent</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="14"><p>Random Effects</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> τ00 participant_id</p></td><td align="left" colspan="13"><p>252.71</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> σ<sup>2</sup></p></td><td align="left" colspan="13"><p>101.10</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> -2LL</p></td><td align="left" colspan="13"><p>1739.6</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note</emph> Linear mixed effects models were used to examine the effects of group (RD = current reading difficulties; Hx = history of reading difficulties; TD = typical development) and condition (CC = congruent-consistent; CI = congruent-inconsistent; IN = incongruent-inconsistent) on performance accuracy. Age was included as a covariate and was centered around the mean (M<subs>age</subs> = 10.7 years). To evaluate pairwise comparisons between the groups and conditions, we re-estimated the model, changing the referents</p> <hd id="AN0187667264-13">Eye movement measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187667264-14">Percent of fixations on the target</hd> <p>Table 5 reports the results of the main effects models for percent of fixations on the target in the phonological awareness task. These models reveal significant effects of group and condition, which are plotted in Fig. 2. The RD group exhibited a lower percent of fixations on the target than the TD group [<emph>b</emph> = -2.83, <emph>p</emph> =.003] and the Hx group [<emph>b</emph> = 2.40, <emph>p</emph> =.016], and the TD and the Hx group did not differ from each other [<emph>b</emph> = -0.44, <emph>p</emph> =.670]. Turning to the main effect of condition, children showed a significantly lower percentage of fixations on the target in the incongruent-inconsistent condition than in the congruent-consistent condition [<emph>b</emph> = -6.12, <emph>p</emph> =.010], whereas the percent of fixations on the target for the congruent-inconsistent condition did not significantly differ from either the congruent-consistent [<emph>b</emph> = -0.71, <emph>p</emph> =.280] or the incongruent-inconsistent condition [<emph>b</emph> = 1.07, <emph>p</emph> =.102].</p> <p>Table 5 Main effects models for percent fixations on target on the experimental phonological awareness task</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" colspan="4"><p>Model A: TD and CC as Referents</p></th><th align="left" colspan="4"><p>Model B: TD and IN as Referents</p></th><th align="left" colspan="4"><p>Model C: RD and CC as Referents</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Model D: RD and IN as Referents</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Independent Variables</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Estimate</p></th><th align="left"><p>Standard Error</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Estimate</p></th><th align="left"><p>Standard Error</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Estimate</p></th><th align="left"><p>Standard Error</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Estimate</p></th><th align="left"><p>Standard Error</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Fixed Effects</p></td><td align="left" colspan="15" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Intercept</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>31.09</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.78</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>29.31</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.78</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>28.26</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.74</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>26.48</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.74</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Age</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>0.02</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.02</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.309</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>0.02</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.02</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.309</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>0.02</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.02</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.309</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.02</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.02</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.309</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Group</p></td><td align="left" colspan="15" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> TD</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p><italic>Referent</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>2.83</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.92</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.003</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.83</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.92</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.003</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Hx</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>-0.44</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.02</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.670</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>-0.44</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.02</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.670</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>2.40</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.97</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.016</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.40</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.97</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.016</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> RD</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>-2.83</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.92</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.003</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>-2.83</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.92</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.003</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p><italic>Referent</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Condition</p></td><td align="left" colspan="15" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> CC</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p><italic>Referent</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>1.78</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.69</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.010</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p><italic>Referent</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.78</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.69</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.010</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> CI</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>-0.71</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.65</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.280</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>1.07</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.65</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.102</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>-0.71</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.65</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.280</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.07</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.65</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.102</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> IN</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>-1.78</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.69</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.010</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p><italic>Referent</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>-1.78</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.69</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.010</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Referent</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="16"><p>Random Effects</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> τ00 participant_id</p></td><td align="left" colspan="15"><p>4.34</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> σ<sup>2</sup></p></td><td align="left" colspan="15"><p>127.99</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> -2LL</p></td><td align="left" colspan="15"><p>13505.8</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note</emph> Linear mixed effects models were used to examine the effects of group (RD = current reading difficulties; Hx = history of reading difficulties; TD = typical development) and condition (CC = congruent-consistent; CI = congruent-inconsistent; IN = incongruent-inconsistent) on percent fixations on the target. Age was included as a covariate and was centered around the mean (M<subs>age</subs> = 10.7 years). To evaluate pairwise comparisons between the groups and conditions, we re-estimated the model, changing the referents.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Main Effect Model-Estimated Percent Fixations on Target by Group and Condition. Larger values represent better discrimination of the target from the foils. Asterisk (*) indicates significant differences (i.e., p <.05) according to the linear mixed effects model presented in Table 5. Groups were the following: RD = current reading difficulties; Hx = history of reading disability; TD = typical development. Conditions were the following: CC = congruent-consistent; CI = congruent-inconsistent; IN = incongruent-inconsistent</p> <hd id="AN0187667264-15">Percent dwell time on the target</hd> <p>Table 6 reports the main effect results of the model for percent of dwell time on the target in phonological awareness task. The results indicate significant group differences in how long participants spent viewing the target relative to the foils (see Fig. 3). The RD group spent a significantly smaller percent of dwell time on the target than both the TD group [<emph>b</emph> = -4.72, <emph>p</emph> <.001] and the Hx group [<emph>b</emph> = -2.72, <emph>p</emph> =.020]. Although the percentage of dwell time on the target was numerically lower for the Hx group than the TD group, the difference between these groups was not significant [<emph>b</emph> = -2.00, <emph>p</emph> =.099]. Although the obtained value was numerically lower in the incongruent-inconsistent condition than in the congruent-consistent condition, no significant differences between conditions were detected for percent dwell time on target [<emph>b</emph> = -1.39, <emph>p</emph> =.080].</p> <p>Table 6 Main effects model for percent dwell time on target on the experimental phonological awareness task</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Independent Variables</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Model A: TD and CC as Referents</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Model B: TD and IN as Referents</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Model C: RD and CC as Referents</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Model D: RD and IN as Referents</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Estimate</p></th><th align="left"><p>Standard Error</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Estimate</p></th><th align="left"><p>Standard Error</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Estimate</p></th><th align="left"><p>Standard Error</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Estimate</p></th><th align="left"><p>Standard Error</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Fixed Effects</p></td><td align="left" colspan="12" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>34.26</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.91</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>32.87</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.91</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>29.54</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.86</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>28.15</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.86</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Age</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.03</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.03</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.260</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.03</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.03</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.260</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.03</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.03</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.260</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.03</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.03</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.260</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Group</p></td><td align="left" colspan="12" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> TD</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Referent</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.72</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.08</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.72</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.08</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Hx</p></td><td align="left"><p>-2.00</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.20</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.099</p></td><td align="left"><p>-2.00</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.20</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.099</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.72</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.13</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.020</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.72</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.13</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.020</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> RD</p></td><td align="left"><p>-4.72</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.08</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>-4.72</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.08</p></td><td align="left"><p>< 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Referent</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Condition</p></td><td align="left" colspan="12" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> CC</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Referent</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.39</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.79</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.080</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Referent</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.39</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.79</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.080</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> CI</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.29</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.75</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.695</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.10</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.75</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.142</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.29</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.75</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.695</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.10</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.75</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.142</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> IN</p></td><td align="left"><p>-1.39</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.79</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.080</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Referent</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>-1.39</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.79</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.080</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Referent</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td><td align="left"><p>--</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="13"><p>Random Effects</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> τ00 participant_id</p></td><td align="left" colspan="12"><p>6.32</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> σ<sup>2</sup></p></td><td align="left" colspan="12"><p>166.60</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> -2LL</p></td><td align="left" colspan="12"><p>13970.9</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note</emph> Linear mixed effects models were used to examine the effects of group (RD = current reading difficulties; Hx = history of reading difficulties; TD = typical development) and condition (CC = congruent-consistent; CI = congruent-inconsistent; IN = incongruent-inconsistent) on percent dwell time on the target. Age was included as a covariate and was centered around the mean (M<subs>age</subs> = 10.7 years). To evaluate pairwise comparisons between the groups and conditions, we re-estimated the model, changing the referents</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Main Effect Model-Estimated Percent Dwell Time on Target by Group. Larger values represent better discrimination of the target from the foils. Asterisk (*) indicates significant differences (i.e., p <.05) according to the linear mixed effects model presented in Table 6. RD = current reading difficulties; Hx = history of reading disability; TD = typical development</p> <hd id="AN0187667264-16">Discussion</hd> <p>We utilized behavioral and eye-tracking measures to examine how words' orthographic properties influenced phonological processing in children with a history of reading difficulties but variable word reading skills at present (i.e., RD and Hx groups). We compared these children to a sample with typical language and literacy development (i.e., the TD group). Our general hypothesis was that the children in each group would show different impacts of orthography on their phonological awareness performance. We predicted that children would demonstrate better discrimination of the correct response (i.e., better accuracy or higher percentage of fixations or dwell time on the target) on trials where the orthography of the stimulus and target were congruent and consistent than on trials where it was incongruent or inconsistent. If children with dyslexia have impaired connections between orthographic and phonological representations (e.g., Landerl et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref73">25</reflink>]), an interaction between group and condition would also be predicted, such that children with typical word reading skills exhibit a larger influence of orthography (i.e., a greater difference between conditions) than those with weaker word reading skills. Our results partially supported these predictions, revealing significant effects of group and condition, but no significant interactions.</p> <p>Analyses of accuracy revealed a significant effect of condition for all groups, such that children were significantly more accurate in the congruent-consistent condition than the congruent-inconsistent condition, and more accurate in the congruent-inconsistent condition than the incongruent-inconsistent condition. This means that items were easiest when the final sounds in spoken word pairs shared a common spelling and items were most difficult when the stimulus word and target word differed in the spelling of their final sounds. Additionally, items that had the same sound-letter mappings for the stimulus and target word, but which varied across different items in the task, were more difficult than those that were consistent across the task. These results align with previous studies of typical adults and children which demonstrate that demonstrate that orthography is activated without conscious effort in children during phonological tasks (Castles et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref74">12</reflink>]; Ventura et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref75">45</reflink>]). This condition effect on accuracy is in line with our hypotheses, which were guided by theories of lexical representations (e.g., Seidenberg & McClelland, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref76">36</reflink>]) and more recent studies of skilled adult readers (Wegener et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref77">50</reflink>]) and developing readers (Castles et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref78">12</reflink>]; Wegener et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref79">48</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref80">49</reflink>]). However, the behavioral measure of accuracy did not detect a significant effect of group or group by condition interaction. Although the percentage of items answered correctly was numerically highest for the TD group and lowest for the RD group, this difference in accuracy did not reach statistical significance in this sample. Thus, the accuracy results suggest that phonological awareness performance was influenced by orthography in similar ways across groups.</p> <p>Analyses of eye-tracking data allowed a deeper and more precise examination of task performance than the behavioral measure of accuracy. Eye-tracking results also indicated that orthography influenced phonological processing for all groups. The percentage of target fixations was lower in the incongruent-inconsistent condition compared to the congruent-consistent condition, which indicates that discriminating the target from the foils was most difficult when there was a mismatch between the spelling of the final phoneme in the stimulus and the target. This finding is consistent with our accuracy results and converges with other studies examining orthographic consistency (Ventura et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref81">45</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref82">46</reflink>]; Wegener et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref83">50</reflink>]; Ziegler & Ferrand, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref84">55</reflink>]).</p> <p>Importantly, eye-tracking measures revealed a main effect of group that was not observed in the behavioral measure of accuracy. Children with RD made proportionally fewer fixations with shorter dwell times on the targets than children in the Hx and TD groups. In other words, the RD group spent more time considering the distractors, indicating that it was more difficult for them to choose the correct answer. Conversely, children in the Hx and TD groups spent less time looking at the distractors, indicating that it was easier for them to choose the correct answer. On both eye-tracking measures, children in the Hx group showed only subtle, and non-significant differences from TD children. In combination, eye-tracking results suggest that despite having a history of reading difficulties, the Hx group is currently demonstrating a very similar approach to phonological processing as children with TD. This finding suggests that remediated readers can show similar phonological processing as TD peers and speaks to the plasticity of reading networks and the restorative potential of effective reading interventions.</p> <p>The eye-tracking results further reveal that <emph>all</emph> readers were sensitive to orthography. Previous studies by Bruck ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref85">10</reflink>]) and Landerl et al. ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref86">25</reflink>]) found that those with TD made more errors that reflected orthographic influence (e.g., saying "bat" when asked to delete the last sound in "bath"; Landerl et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref87">25</reflink>]) than children with dyslexia in production-based phonological awareness tasks. The interpretation of these findings was that weaker connections between orthography and phonology in children with dyslexia yielded less influence of orthography on their completion of phonological awareness tasks. In the current study, however, we did not find a significant interaction between group and condition for any measure. Instead, our results suggest that orthography influenced phonological awareness performance for children with past and/or current reading difficulties in similar ways as children with TD.</p> <p>There are several factors to consider in the evaluation of this finding, including statistical limitations, methodological differences across studies, and meaningful differences in the sample characteristics. It is likely that our sample size limited the ability to detect interaction effects. This is not uncommon in studies focused on special populations where there are constraints on both the number of participants that can be recruited and the number of items that can be feasibly delivered in a study session. While our study included both more participants and more items than previous studies that detected interactions (Bruck, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref88">10</reflink>]; Lander et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref89">25</reflink>]), the experimental tasks were not directly comparable. Our use of LMEs offers an advancement of analytic methods that allows for greater control over study parameters (e.g., Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref90">16</reflink>]), and the results of this study will be useful for designing future studies with greater statistical power.</p> <p>Regardless of sample size limitations, it is important to consider other explanations for differences between the present findings and those of previous studies. A key methodological difference is that previous studies analyzed the types of errors children made in production-based phonological awareness tasks. For example, children with dyslexia in the Landerl et al. ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref91">25</reflink>]) study made more phonological segmentation errors than age- and spelling-matched control groups, which underscored their core phonological deficits, but also restricted the ability to observe orthographic influences because each error could only count in one category. Likewise, because children with stronger word reading abilities made fewer segmentation errors, they had more opportunities to exhibit orthographic errors. In contrast, the current study did not require children to make errors to detect orthographic influences on processing because we monitored accuracy and eye movements during a receptive task which varied the orthographic features of stimulus and target words in different conditions. This design may have been more sensitive for detecting orthographic influences on phonological processing, even in children with weaker phonological skills, and explain why we observed significant main effects of group and condition in the predicted directions but no significant interactions.</p> <p>Another possibility is that differences in reading experience and supports may have influenced the way children interacted with the task (Huettig et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref92">22</reflink>]). In our sample, children with TD were, on average, 9–12 months younger than the Hx and RD groups, which could indicate less reading experience compared to the other two groups. However, all models included age as a covariate and consistently indicated that age was not a significant predictor. In the context of controlling for age, eye-tracking measures revealed that children with Hx performed more like children with TD than RD. We also attempted to quantify differences between the instructional supports received by the RD and Hx groups using a post-hoc reading services questionnaire. Although questionnaire results should be interpreted with caution due to low response rates and limited depth of questions, the potential difference between the Hx and RD groups in the cumulative amount of time spent in reading services suggests a need to investigate the cumulative effects of reading experience and instruction more systematically in future studies.</p> <p>Overall, the present study supports multifactorial models of dyslexia that consider orthographic knowledge as a contributor to word reading profiles (i.e., the PCVOD model; van der Leij & Morfidi, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref93">42</reflink>]). These models also highlight the reciprocity of orthographic and phonological knowledge, even among children with current word reading difficulties. In this study, standardized measures of phonological awareness (i.e., the CTOPP-2 Elision, Blending Words, and Phoneme Isolation) did not differ between the Hx and RD groups, but a standardized measure of spelling, or stored orthographic knowledge (i.e., the TWS-5), did. Children in the Hx group had better spelling scores than children in the RD group, indicating they could retrieve orthographic patterns more readily than the RD group. In other words, the children in each group differed in orthographic knowledge, even though they did not differ in the way in which orthography influenced phonological processing. These findings align with the PCVOD model (van der Leij & Morfidi, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref94">42</reflink>]) in that the groups with better orthographic knowledge also had better word reading skills.</p> <p>Finally, we want to briefly discuss oral language as a factor that may contribute to reading outcomes. Although most students in our sample would not be considered to meet criteria for language impairment, based on scores from the Recalling Sentences subtest of the CELF-5, we did observe a significant difference between the TD and RD groups on this measure; scores for the Hx group were intermediate to the other two groups and not significantly different from either group. Thus, it is likely that oral language also contributed to the overall language-literacy profile of the children in our sample.</p> <p>Some limitations of the present study include the observational, cross-sectional design and small sample. Future research could address these limitations and extend what is known about how orthographic knowledge contributes to phonological processing over time. First, longitudinal designs are essential to ruling out severity as an explanatory factor for the difference between Hx and RD groups. Longitudinal studies would also lead to better understanding of the potential causal effects of orthographic knowledge on phonological processing and word reading over time. The possible role of orthography as a compensatory mechanism while learning to read is not fully understood, but such a mechanism would be a critical target for intervention. Thus, a second direction for future research would be a thorough evaluation of the potential benefits of including orthography as part of interventions designed to support phonological awareness or word reading. Many interventions incorporate orthography, but it is not always done systematically. Experimental comparison of the different ways in which orthography can be included in phonological awareness and reading instruction would be beneficial. Finally, a more robust quantitative and qualitative analysis of reading experience would provide much needed insight to how environmental factors (as opposed to neurobiological factors) influence word reading performance.</p> <hd id="AN0187667264-17">Conclusions</hd> <p>In conclusion, school-aged children with current reading difficulties (RD), children with a history of reading difficulties who are currently presenting with typical word reading skills (Hx), and children with typical development and no history of reading difficulties (TD) are all influenced by the orthographic properties of spoken words when they complete phonological awareness tasks. The lack of a significant interaction between group and condition suggests that children in the RD and Hx groups are influenced to a similar degree as children with TD, even though they had relatively poorer orthographic knowledge as measured by standardized assessments. Importantly, the children in both the RD and Hx groups had been receiving explicit and intensive reading instruction emphasizing the alphabetic principle. These results highlight the important role that orthographic knowledge plays in the completion of phonological awareness tasks, even if the level of orthographic knowledge is reduced and the task does not explicitly present orthography or require spoken responses. This is relevant within the context of current discussions of orthographic mapping and phonological awareness skills, suggesting that efforts to strengthen children's knowledge of connections between orthography and phonology will yield improved phonological awareness as well as word reading ability.</p> <hd id="AN0187667264-18">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>This research was partially supported with funding from an American Speech-Language Hearing Foundation Clinical Research Grant, an ASPIRE-III Grant from the University of South Carolina Vice President for Research, and the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R01D017156; PI: Adlof). The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the funding agencies. We are grateful to the schools, children, and families who participated in this research, as well as to the research assistants in the South Carolina Research on Language and Literacy (SCROLL) Lab who participated in data collection, scoring, and analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0187667264-19">Funding</hd> <p>Open access funding provided by the Carolinas Consortium.</p> <hd id="AN0187667264-20">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187667264-21">Competing interests</hd> <p>The authors have no competing financial or non-financial interests to disclose.</p> <hd id="AN0187667264-22">Electronic supplementary material</hd> <p>Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.</p> <p>Graph: Supplementary Material 1</p> <hd id="AN0187667264-23">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0187667264-24"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref2" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Adlof SM, Hogan TP. Understanding dyslexia in the context of developmental language disorders. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools. 2018; 49; 4: 762-773. 10.1044/2018_LSHSS-DYSLC-18-0049</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref56" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Adlof SM, Scoggins J, Brazendale A, Babb S, Petscher Y. Identifying children at risk for language impairment or dyslexia with group-administered measures. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research. 2017; 60; 12: 3507-3522. 10.1044/2017_JSLHR-L-16-0473</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref18" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Apel K, Henbest VS, Masterson J. Orthographic knowledge: Clarifications, challenges, and future directions. Reading and Writing. 2019; 32; 4: 873-889. 10.1007/s11145-018-9895-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref50" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Ashby J, Dix H, Bontrager M, Dey R, Archer A. Phonemic awareness contributes to text reading fluency: Evidence from eye movements. School Psychology Review. 2013; 42; 2: 157. 10.1080/02796015.2013.12087482</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref14" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Astle DE, Fletcher-Watson S. Beyond the core-deficit hypothesis in developmental disorders. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2020; 29; 5: 431-437. 10.1177/0963721420925518</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref25" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bekebrede J, van der Leij A, Plakas A, Share D, Morfidi E. Dutch dyslexia in adulthood: Core features and variety. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2010; 14; 2: 183-210. 10.1080/10888430903117500</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref36" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Beyersmann E, Wegener S, Spencer J, Castles A. Acquisition of orthographic forms via spoken complex word training. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2023; 30: 739-750. 10.3758/s13423-022-02185-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref52" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Blythe HI, Pagán A, Dodd M. Beyond decoding: Phonological processing during silent reading in beginning readers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition. 2015; 41; 4: 1244. 10.1037/xlm0000080</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref67" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Brown, L, Sherbenou, R. J, & Johnsen, S. K. (2010). Test of Nonverbal intelligence–Fourth Edition (TONI-4). Pro-Ed.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bruck M. Persistence of dyslexics' phonological awareness deficits. Developmental Psychology. 1992; 28; 5: 874. 10.1037/0012-1649.28.5.874</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bus AG, Van IJzendoorn MH. Phonological awareness and early reading: A meta-analysis of experimental training studies. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1999; 91; 3: 403. 10.1037/0022-0663.91.3.403</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Castles A, Holmes VM, Neath J, Kinoshita S. How does orthographic knowledge influence performance on phonological awareness tasks?. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A. 2003; 56; 3: 445-467. 10.1080/02724980244000486</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Castles A, Wilson K, Coltheart M. Early orthographic influences on phonemic awareness tasks: Evidence from a preschool training study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 2011; 108; 1: 203-210. 10.1016/j.jecp.2010.07.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Catts HW, Compton D, Tomblin JB, Bridges MS. Prevalence and nature of late-emerging poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2012; 104; 1: 166-181. 10.1037/a0025323</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Catts HW, McIlraith A, Bridges MS, Nielsen DC. Viewing a phonological deficit within a multifactorial model of dyslexia. Reading and Writing. 2017; 30; 3: 613-629. 10.1007/s11145-016-9692-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen G, Saad ZS, Britton JC, Pine DS, Cox RC. Linear mixed-effects modeling approach to FMRI group analysis. Neuroimage. 2013; 73: 176-190. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.01.047</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Compton, D. L. (2020). Focusing our view of dyslexia through a multifactorial lens: A commentary. Learning Disability Quarterly, 0731948720939009. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948720939009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eskenazi, M. A. (2023). Best practices for cleaning eye movement data in reading research. Behavior Research Methods, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-023-02137-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Georgiou GK, Martinez D, Vieira APA, Guo K. Is orthographic knowledge a strength or a weakness in individuals with dyslexia? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Annals of Dyslexia. 2021; 71; 1: 5-27. 10.1007/s11881-021-00220-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hendricks AE, Adlof SM, Alonzo CN, Fox AB, Hogan TP. Identifying children at risk for developmental language disorder using a brief, whole-classroom screen. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research. 2019; 62; 4: 896-908. 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-18-0093</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horowitz, S. H, Rawe, J, & Whittaker, M. C. (2017). The state of learning disabilities: Understanding the 1 in 5. National Center for Learning Disabilities.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huettig F, Lachmann T, Reis A, Petersson KM. Distinguishing cause from effect–many deficits associated with developmental dyslexia may be a consequence of reduced and suboptimal reading experience. Language Cognition and Neuroscience. 2018; 33; 3: 333-350. 10.1080/23273798.2017.1348528</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jared D, Ashby J, Agauas SJ, Levy BA. Phonological activation of word meanings in grade 5 readers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition. 2016; 42; 4: 524. 10.1037/xlm0000184</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnston M, McKague M, Pratt C. Evidence for an automatic orthographic code in the processing of visually novel word forms. Language and Cognitive Processes. 2004; 19; 2: 273-317. 10.1080/01690960344000189</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Landerl K, Frith U, Wimmer H. Intrusion of orthographic knowledge on phoneme awareness: Strong in normal readers, weak in dyslexic readers. Applied Psycholinguistics. 1996; 17; 1: 1-14. 10.1017/S0142716400009437</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Larsen, S. C, Hammill, D, & Moats, L. (2013). Test of Written Spelling-Fifth Edition (TWS-5). Pro-Ed.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Livingston EM, Siegel LS, Ribary U. Developmental dyslexia: Emotional impact and consequences. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties. 2018; 23; 2: 107-135. 10.1080/19404158.2018.1479975</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKague M, Davis C, Pratt C, Johnston MB. The role of feedback from phonology to orthography in orthographic learning: An extension of item-based accounts. Journal of Research in Reading. 2008; 31; 1: 55-76. 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2007.00361.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nation K, Castles A. Putting the learning into orthographic learning. Theories of Reading Development. 2017; 15: 147-168. 10.1075/swll.15.09nat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Institutes of Health (2015, April 8). Racial and ethnic categories and definitions for NIH diversity programs and for other reporting purposes [NOT-OD-15089]. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-15-089.html</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Reading Panel (US), National Institute of Child Health, & Human Development (US). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pennington BF, Santerre-Lemmon L, Rosenberg J, MacDonald B, Boada R, Friend A, Olson RK. Individual prediction of dyslexia by single versus multiple deficit models. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2012; 121; 1: 212-224. 10.1037/a0025823</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti, C. A. (2017). Lexical quality revisited. Developmental perspectives in written language and literacy: In honor of Ludo Verhoeven, 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.206.04</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reis A, Araújo S, Morais IS, Faísca L. Reading and reading-related skills in adults with dyslexia from different orthographic systems: A review and meta-analysis. Annals of Dyslexia. 2020; 70; 3: 339-368. 10.1007/s11881-020-00205-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> SAS software (2013). SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC, USA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seidenberg MS, McClelland JL. A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review. 1989; 96; 4: 523-568. 10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.523</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snowling MJ, Lervåg A, Nash HM, Hulme C. Longitudinal relationships between speech perception, phonological skills and reading in children at high-risk of dyslexia. Developmental Science. 2019; 22; 1: e12723. 10.1111/desc.12723</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snowling MJ, Hulme C, Nation K. Defining and understanding dyslexia: Past, present and future. Oxford Review of Education. 2020; 46; 4: 501-513. 10.1080/03054985.2020.1765756</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torgesen, J. K, Wagner, R. K, & Rashotte, C. A. (2012). Test of Word Reading Efficiency-Second Edition (TOWRE-2). Pro-Ed.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torppa M, Eklund K, van Bergen E, Lyytinen H. Late-emerging and resolving dyslexia: A follow-up study from age 3 to 14. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2015; 43; 7: 1389-1401. 10.1007/s10802-015-0003-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Bergen E, De Jong PF, Regtvoort A, Oort F, Van Otterloo S, van der Leij A. Dutch children at family risk of dyslexia: Precursors, reading development, and parental effects. Dyslexia. 2011; 17; 1: 2-18. 10.1002/dys.423</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van der Leij A, Morfidi E. Core deficits and variable differences in Dutch poor readers learning English. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2006; 39; 1: 74-90. 10.1177/00222194060390010701</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van der Leij A, van Daal VH. Automatization aspects of dyslexia: Speed limitations in word identification, sensitivity to increasing task demands, and orthographic compensation. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 1999; 32; 5: 417-428. 10.1177/002221949903200507</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vellutino FR, Fletcher JM, Snowling MJ, Scanlon DM. Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades?. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines. 2004; 45; 1: 2-40. 10.1046/j.0021-9630.2003.00305.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ventura P, Morais J, Kolinsky R. The development of the orthographic consistency effect in speech recognition: From sublexical to lexical involvement. Cognition. 2007; 105: 547-576. 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ventura P, Kolinsky R, Pattamadilok C, Morais J. The developmental turnpoint of orthographic consistency effects in speech recognition. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 2008; 100: 135-145. 10.1016/j.jecp.2008.01.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wagner, R. K, Torgesen, J. K, Rashotte, C. A, & Pearson, N. A. (2013). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing-Second edit (CTOPP-2). Pro-Ed.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wegener S, Wang H, de Lissa P, Robidoux S, Nation K, Castles A. Children reading spoken words: Interactions between vocabulary and orthographic expectancy. Developmental Science. 2017; 21; 3: e12577. 10.1111/desc.12577</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wegener S, Wang H, Nation K, Castles A. Tracking the evolution of orthographic expectancies over building visual experience. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 2020; 199: 104912. 10.1016/j.jecp.2020.104912</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wegener S, Wang H, Beyersmann E, Nation K, Colenbrander D, Castles A. Orthographic expectancies in the absence of contextual support. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2023; 27; 2: 187-197. 10.1080/10888438.2022.2127356</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wiig, E. H, Semel, E, & Secord, W. A. (2013). Clinical evaluation of Language fundamentals-Fifth Edition (CELF-5). Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Willcutt EG, Betjemann RS, Pennington BF, Olson RK, DeFries JC, Wadsworth SJ. Longitudinal study of reading disability and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity disorder: Implications for education. Mind Brain and Education. 2007; 1; 4: 181-192. 10.1111/j.1751-228X.2007.00019.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson AM, Lesaux NK. Persistence of phonological processing deficits in college students with dyslexia who have age-appropriate reading skills. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2001; 34; 5: 394-400. 10.1177/002221940103400501</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodcock, R. W. (2011). Woodcock Reading Mastery tests–Third Edition (WRMT-III). Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ziegler JC, Ferrand L. Orthography shapes the perception of speech: The consistency effect in auditory word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 1998; 5; 4: 683-689. 10.3758/BF03208845</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0187667264-25"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> Most participants (n = 67) completed both assessments, but 2 children with TD were missing WRMT-3 and 1 child with Hx and 1 with RD were missing TOWRE-2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> All 29 participants in the RD group who completed the TOWRE-2 achieved standard scores (SS) ≤ 85 (1 child did not complete this assessment), but 8 of the 30 participants in the RD group achieved a SS > 85 on the WRMT-3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> We intended to have 12 trials per condition; however, due to a task development error, we have 10 congruent-consistent trials, 14 congruent-inconsistent trials, and 12 incongruent-inconsistent trials.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Lauren S. Baron; Anna M. Ehrhorn; Peter Shlanta; Jane Ashby; Bethany A. Bell and Suzanne M. Adlof</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref92"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1482260
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Orthographic Influences on Phonological Processing in Children with and without Reading Difficulties: An Eye-Tracking Study
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lauren+S%2E+Baron%22">Lauren S. Baron</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Anna+M%2E+Ehrhorn%22">Anna M. Ehrhorn</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Peter+Shlanta%22">Peter Shlanta</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jane+Ashby%22">Jane Ashby</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bethany+A%2E+Bell%22">Bethany A. Bell</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Suzanne+M%2E+Adlof%22">Suzanne M. Adlof</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0156-7231">0000-0002-0156-7231</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+and+Writing%3A+An+Interdisciplinary+Journal%22"><i>Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal</i></searchLink>. 2025 38(7):1925-1948.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 24
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) (DHHS/NIH)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: R01D017156
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Orthographic+Symbols%22">Orthographic Symbols</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Phonology%22">Phonology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Processing%22">Language Processing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Difficulties%22">Reading Difficulties</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Eye+Movements%22">Eye Movements</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Children%22">Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Phonological+Awareness%22">Phonological Awareness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Skills%22">Reading Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pictorial+Stimuli%22">Pictorial Stimuli</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Phonemes%22">Phonemes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Discrimination+Learning%22">Discrimination Learning</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11145-024-10567-y
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0922-4777<br />1573-0905
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Phonological processing is an important contributor to decoding and spelling difficulties, but it does not fully explain word reading outcomes for all children. As orthographic knowledge is acquired, it influences phonological processing in typical readers. In the present study, we examined whether orthography affects phonological processing differently for children with current reading difficulties (RD), children with a history of reading difficulties who are currently presenting with typical word reading skills (Hx), and children with typical development and no history of reading difficulties (TD). School-aged children completed a phonological awareness task containing spoken words and pictures while eye movements were recorded. In this task, children had to pair a spoken stimulus word with one of four pictures that ended with the same sound. Within the task, stimulus-target picture pairs varied in the congruency and consistency of the orthographic and phonological mappings of their final consonant sounds. Eye movements revealed that children with typical word reading (the Hx and TD groups) showed better discrimination of the target from the foils compared to peers with underdeveloped word reading skills. All children were more accurate when stimulus-target pairs were congruent and consistent than when they were incongruent or inconsistent. Orthography plays an important role in the completion of phonological awareness tasks, even in the absence of written words and for children with a wide range of reading abilities. Results highlight the importance of considering orthography during interventions for phonological awareness and word reading.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1482260
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1482260
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11145-024-10567-y
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 24
        StartPage: 1925
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Orthographic Symbols
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Phonology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Processing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Difficulties
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Eye Movements
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Phonological Awareness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pictorial Stimuli
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Phonemes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Discrimination Learning
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Orthographic Influences on Phonological Processing in Children with and without Reading Difficulties: An Eye-Tracking Study
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lauren S. Baron
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Anna M. Ehrhorn
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Peter Shlanta
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jane Ashby
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bethany A. Bell
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Suzanne M. Adlof
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0922-4777
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-0905
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 38
            – Type: issue
              Value: 7
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1