Perception & Psychophysics

, Volume 44, Issue 5, pp 437–444 | Cite as

Developmental versus sensory deficit effects on perceptual processing in the reading disabled

  • Julie R. Brannan
  • Mary C. Williams


Thirty children and 5 adults participated in two experiments designed to compare visual processing in normal and reading disabled children. The children were aged 8, 10, and 12 years. In Experiment 1, subjects were asked to detect the temporal order of two briefly presented stimuli. In Experiment 2, subjects sorted cards containing bracket stimuli that did or did not produce perceptual grouping effects. Poor readers required more time to make accurate temporal order judgments and showed stronger perceptual grouping effects. For both good and poor readers, the amount of time necessary to make a correct temporal order judgment decreased, and perceptual grouping effects became weaker with age. However, the magnitude of the difference between the groups did not lessen with age. These results suggest that there are visual processing differences between good and poor readers that do not appear to correct by age 12.


Stimulus Onset Asynchrony Temporal Order Stimulus Type Reading Ability Poor Reader 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Backman, J. E., Mamen, M., &Ferguson, H. B. (1984). Reading level design: Conceptual and methodological issues in reading research.Psychological Bulletin,96, 560–568.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Brannan, J. R., &Williams, M. C. (1987). Allocation of visual attention in good and poor readers.Perception and Psychophysics,41, 23–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Brannan, J. R., & Williams, M. C. (in press). The effects of age and reading ability on flicker threshold.Clinical Vision Sciences.Google Scholar
  4. Breitmeyer, B. (1983). Sensory masking, persistence, and enhancement in visual exploration and reading. In K. Rayner (Ed.),Eyemovements in reading (pp. 3–30). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Breitmeyer, B. G., &Ganz, L. (1976). Implications of sustained and transient channels for theories of visual pattern masking, saccadic suppression, and information processing.Psychological Review,87, 52–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Broadbent, D. (1977). The hidden preattention process.American Psychologist,32, 109–118.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryant, N. D. (1964). Characteristics of dyslexia and their remedial implications.The Exceptional Child,31, 195–197.Google Scholar
  8. Bryant, P., &Goswami, U. (1986). Strengths and weaknesses of the reading level design: A comment on Backman, Marnen, and Ferguson.Psychological Bulletin,100, 101–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clifton-Everest, I. M. (1976). Dyslexia: Is there a disorder of visual perception?Neuropsychologia,14, 491–494.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Connors, C. K. (1970). Cortical visual evoked response in children with learning disorders.Psychophysiology,7, 418–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lovegrove, W., Martin, F., &Slaghuis, W. (1986). A theoretical and experimental case of a visual deficit in specific reading disability.Cognitive Neuropsychology,3, 225–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mamen, M., Ferguson, H. B., &Backman, J. E. (1986). No difference represents a significant finding: The logic of the reading level design. A response to Bryant and Goswarni.Psychological Bulletin,100, 104–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mason, M. (1980). Reading ability and the encoding of location information.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,6, 89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. May, J., Williams, M., & Dunlap, W. (in press). Temporal order judgments in good and poor readers.Neuropsychologia.Google Scholar
  15. Mecacci, L., Sechi, E., &Levi, S. (1983). Abnormalities of visual evoked potentials by checkerboards in children with specific reading disability.Brain & Cognition,2, 135–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Money, J. (1966). On learning and not learning to read. In J. Money (Ed.),The disabled reader: Education of the dyslexic child (pp. 21–40). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
  17. Neisser, U. (1967).Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  18. Pomerantz, J., &Garner, W. (1973). Stimulus configuration in selective attention tasks.Perception & Psychophysics,14, 565–569.Google Scholar
  19. Preston, M. S., Guthrie, J. T., &Childs, B. (1974). Visual evoked responses (VERs) in normal and disabled readers.Psychophysiology,11, 452–457.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Satz, P., &Sparrow, S. (1970). Specific developmental dyslexia: A theoretical formulation. In D. J. Bakker & P. Satz (Eds.),Specific reading disability: Advances in theory and method (pp. 12–32). Rotterdam: University of Rotterdam Press.Google Scholar
  21. Sobotka, K. R., &May, J. G. (1977). Visual evoked potentials and reaction time in normal and dyslexic children.Psychophysiology,14, 18–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Stanley, G., &Hall, R. (1973). Short-termvisual information processing in dyslexics.Child Development,44, 841–844.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Symann-Louett, N., Gascon, G. G., Matsumiya, Y., &Lombroso, C. T. (1977). Wave form difference in visual evoked responses between normal and reading disabled children.Neurology,27, 156–159.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Vellutino, F. R. (1987). Dyslexia.Scientific American,256(3), 34–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Weisstein, N., Ozog, G., &Szog, R. (1975). A comparison and evaluation of two models of metacontrast.Psychological Review,82, 325–343.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Williams, M. C., &Bologna, N. (1985). Perceptual grouping effects in good and poor readers.Perception &Psychophysics,38, 367–374.Google Scholar
  27. Williams, M. C., & Brannan, J. R. (1986, November).Global precedence in good and poor readers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  28. Williams, M. C., Brannan, J. R., &Lartigue, E. K. (1987). Visual search in good and poor readers.Clinical Vision Sciences,1, 367–371.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julie R. Brannan
    • 1
  • Mary C. Williams
    • 1
  1. 1.University of New OrleansNew Orleans

Personalised recommendations