Reading and Writing

, Volume 25, Issue 6, pp 1259–1282 | Cite as

What lexical decision and naming tell us about reading

  • Leonard Katz
  • Larry Brancazio
  • Julia Irwin
  • Stephen Katz
  • James Magnuson
  • D. H. Whalen


The lexical decision (LD) and naming (NAM) tasks are ubiquitous paradigms that employ printed word identification. They are major tools for investigating how factors like morphology, semantic information, lexical neighborhood and others affect identification. Although use of the tasks is widespread, there has been little research into how performance in LD or NAM relates to reading ability, a deficiency that limits the translation of research with these tasks to the understanding of individual differences in reading. The present research was designed to provide a link from LD and NAM to the specific variables that characterize reading ability (e.g., decoding, sight word recognition, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension) as well as to important reading-related abilities (phonological awareness and rapid naming). We studied 99 adults with a wide range of reading abilities. LD and NAM strongly predicted individual differences in word identification, less strongly predicted vocabulary size and did not predict comprehension. Fluency was predicted but with differences that depended on the way fluency was defined. Finally, although the tasks did not predict individual differences in rapid naming or phonological awareness, the failures nevertheless assisted in understanding the cognitive mechanisms behind these reading-related abilities. The results demonstrate that LD and NAM are important tools for the study of individual differences in reading.


Lexical decision Naming RT Reading ability 



This work was supported by NIH grant HD-01994 to Haskins Laboratories.


  1. Arnell, K. M., Joanisse, M. F., Klein, R. M., Busseri, M. A., & Tannock, R. (2009). Decomposing the relation between rapid automatized naming (RAN) and reading ability. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 173–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Neely, J. H., Nelson, D., Simpson, G. B., et al. (2002). The English lexicon project: A web-based repository of descriptive and behavioral measures for 40,481 English words and nonwords. Retrieved from
  3. Baron, J., & Strawson, C. (1976). Use of orthographic and word-specific knowledge in reading words aloud. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 386–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brady, S., Fowler, A., Stone, B., & Winbury, N. (1994). Training phonological awareness: A study with inner-city kindergarten children. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 26–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, C. M., Hagoort, P., & Chwilla, D. J. (2000). An event-related brain potential analysis of visual word priming effects. Brain and Language, 72, 158–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruck, M. (1992). Persistence of dyslexics’ phonological awareness deficits. Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 874–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Castles, A., Coltheart, M., Larsen, L., Jones, P., Saunders, S., & Mcarthur, G. (2009). Assessing the basic components of reading: A revision of the Castles and Coltheart test with new norms. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 14, 67–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., & Langdon, R. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108, 204–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cossu, G., Shankweiler, D., Liberman, I. Y., Katz, L., & Tola, G. (1988). Awareness of phonological segments and reading ability in Italian children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dietrich, J. A., & Brady, S. A. (2001). Phonological representations of adult poor readers: an investigation of specificity and stability. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 383–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). Peabody picture vocabulary test (4th ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Pearson.Google Scholar
  12. Elbro, C., Nielsen, I., & Peterson, D. K. (1994). Dyslexia in adults: Evidence for deficits in non-word reading and in the phonological representation of lexical items. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 203–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feldman, L. B., & Andjelkovic, D. (1992). Morphological analysis in word recognition. In R. Frost & L. Katz (Eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning (pp. 343–361). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fiebach, C. J., Friederici, A. D., Muller, K., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2002). fMRI evidence for dual routes to the mental lexicon in visual word recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fowler, A. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (1993). Should reading disabled adults be distinguished from other adults seeking literacy instruction? A review of theory and research. Technical report no. 93-7, National Center for Adult Literacy, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  16. Fowler, A. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (1993). Should reading-disabled adults be distinguished from other adults seeking literacy instruction? A review of theory and research. Report no: NCAL-TR-93-7. National Center on Adult Literacy.Google Scholar
  17. Frost, R., & Katz, L. (Eds.). (1992). Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  18. Frost, S. J., Landi, N., Mencl, W. E., Sandak, R., Fulbright, R. K., Tejada, E.T., et al. (2009). Phonological awareness predicts activation patterns for print and speech. Annals of Dyslexia, 59, 78–97Google Scholar
  19. Georgiou, G. (2008). Why is rapid naming speed related to reading? Examining different theoretical accounts. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Alberta.Google Scholar
  20. Georgiou, G., Das, J. P., & Hayward, D. V. (2008a). Comparing the contribution of two tests of working memory to reading in relation to phonological awareness and rapid naming speed. Journal of Research in Reading, 31, 302–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Georgiou, G., Parrila, R., Kirby, J. R., & Stephenson, K. (2008b). Rapid naming components and their relationship with phonological awareness, orthographic knowledge, speed of processing, and different reading outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 325–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Glushko, R. J. (1979). The organization and activation of orthographic knowledge in reading aloud. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 674–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Graves, W. W., Desai, R., Humphreys, C., Seidenberg, M. S., & Binder, J. R. (2010). Neural systems for reading aloud: A multiparametric approach. Cerebral Cortex, 20, 1799–1815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gray Oral Reading Test. Revision 4. (2001). Austin, TX: Pro-ed.Google Scholar
  25. Harm, M. W., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2004). Computing the meanings of words in reading: Cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes. Psychological Review, 111, 662–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jastrzembski, J. E., & Stanners, R. F. (1975). Multiple word meanings and lexical search speed. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 534–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Katz, L., Lee, C. H., Tabor, W., Frost, S. J., Mencl, W. E., Sandak, R., et al. (2005). Behavioral and neurobiological effects of printed word repetition in lexical decision and naming. Neuropsychologia, 43, 2068–2083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Katz, R., & Shankweiler, D. (1985). Repetitive naming and the detection of word retrieval deficits in the beginning reader. Cortex, 21, 617–625.Google Scholar
  29. Katz, L., & Wicklund, D. (1971). Simple reaction time for good and poor readers in grades two and six. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 32, 270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kucera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lukatela, G., & Turvey, M. T. (2000). An evaluation of the two-cycles model of phonology assembly. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marinus, E., & deJong, P. F. (2010). Size does not matter, frequency does: Sensitivity to orthographic neighbors in normal and dyslexic readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 106, 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. MNRead Acuity Chart. (1994). Regents of the University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  34. Naples, A. J., Chang, J. T., Katz, L., & Grigorenko, E. (2009). Same or different? Insights into the etiology of phonological awareness and rapid naming. Biological Psychology, 80, 226–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Naples, A. J., Katz, L., & Grigorenko, E. L. (submitted). A diffusion model analysis of reaction time and reading skill.Google Scholar
  36. Paulesu, E., Demonet, J.-F., Fazio, F., McCrory, E., Chanoine, V., Brunswick, N., et al. (2001). Dyslexia: Cultural diversity and biological unity. Science, 291, 2165–2167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Perfetti, C. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., & Patterson, K. E. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review, 103, 56–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pugh, K. R., Sandak, R., Frost, S. J., Moore, D., Rueckl, J. G., & Mencl, W. E. (2006). Neurobiological studies of skilled and impaired reading: A work in progress. In G. D. Rosen (Ed.), The dyslexic brain: New pathways in neuroscience discovery (pp. 21–47). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  40. Rastle, K., & Coltheart, M. (2006). Is there serial processing in the reading system; and are there local representations? In S. Andrews (Ed.), From inmarks to ideas: Current issues in lexical processing (pp. 3–24). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  41. Rubenstein, H., Garfield, L., & Millikan, J. (1970). Homographic entries in the internal lexicon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 487–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rueckl, J. G., & Aicher, K. A. (2008). Are CORNER and BROTHER morphologically complex? Not in the long term. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 972–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Scarborough, H. S. (1998). Predicting the future achievement of second graders with reading disabilities: Contributions of phonemic awareness, verbal memory, rapid naming, and IQ. Annals of Dyslexia, 48, 115–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Scarborough, H. S. (2010). When matters! Keynote address to the meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading. BerlinGoogle Scholar
  45. Seidenberg, M. S., Waters, G., Barnes, M., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1984). When does irregular spelling or pronunciation influence word recognition? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 383–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stringer, R., & Stanovich, K. E. (2000). The connection between reaction time and variation in reading ability: Unraveling covariance relationships with cognitive ability and phonological sensitivity. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4, 41–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidel, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  48. Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Test of word reading efficiency. Austin, TX: Pro-ed.Google Scholar
  49. Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Burgess, S., & Hecht, S. (1997). Contributions of phonological awareness and rapid automatic naming ability to the growth of word-reading skills in second-to fifth-grade children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 161–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Venezky, R. L., & Massaro, D. W. (1987). Orthographic structure and spelling-sound regularity in reading English words. In A. Allport, D. MacKay, W. Prinz, & E. Scheerer (Eds.), Language perception and production: Shared mechanisms in listening, speaking, reading, and writing (pp. 158–179). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  51. Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, R. K., & Rashotte, C. (1999). Comprehensive test of phonological processing. Austin, TX: Pro-ed.Google Scholar
  52. Waters, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S., & Bruck, M. (1984). Children’s and adults’ use of spelling-sound information in three reading tasks. Memory and Cognition, 12, 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wechsler, D. (1999). Manual for the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  54. Wolf, M., Bowers, P. G., & Biddle, K. (2000). Naming speed processes, timing, and reading: a conceptual review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 387–407Google Scholar
  55. Woodcock, R. W., Mather, N., & Schrank, F. A. (2004). Woodcock-Johnson III diagnostic reading battery. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar
  56. Yap, M. J., Balota, D. A., Sibley, D. E., & Ratcliff, R. (In Press). Individual differences in visual word recognition: Insights from the ELP. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.Google Scholar
  57. Zeigler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2006). Becoming literate in different languages: Similar problems, different solutions. Developmental Science, 9, 429–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zevin, J. D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2006). Simulating consistency effects and individual differences in nonword NAM: A comparison of current models. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ziegler, J. C., Stone, G. O., & Jacobs, A. M. (1997). What’s the pronunciation for _OUGH and the spelling for /u/? A database for computing feedforward and feedback inconsistency in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 29, 600–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leonard Katz
    • 1
    • 3
  • Larry Brancazio
    • 2
    • 3
  • Julia Irwin
    • 2
    • 3
  • Stephen Katz
    • 3
  • James Magnuson
    • 1
    • 3
  • D. H. Whalen
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of ConnecticutMansfieldUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologySouthern Connecticut State UniversityNew HavenUSA
  3. 3.Haskins LaboratoriesNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations