El objetivo de este trabajo era investigar si existen diferencias a nivel léxico entre los buenos lectores y los menos hábiles. Dos experimentos, uno de decisión léxica y otro de letura en voz alta (naming), utilizando como estímulos palabras, pseudopalabras y pseudohomófonos, fueron realizados para conocer el uso que unos y otros lectores hacen de las rutas léxica y fonológica. Los resultados muestran que cuando la tarea exige el acceso al léxico las diferencias entre ambos tipos de lectores son sólo cuantitativas, en el sentido que los menos hábiles requieren más tiempo pero el procedimiento que emplean es el mismo que los buenos lectores. En cambio, cuando la tarea no exige el acceso al léxico, se producen además diferencias cualitativas, ya que los buenos lectores, a diferencia de los menos hábiles, se aprovechan del efecto pseudohomofonía.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ColtheartM. (1981). Disordes of reading and their implications for models of normal reading.Visible Language, XV3, 245–286.
2.
ColtheartM.RastleK. (1994). Serial processingin reading aloud: Evidence for Dual-Route Models of reading.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 1197–1211.
3.
MccannR. S.BesnerD. (1987). Reading pseudohomophones: Implications for models of pronunciation assembly and the locus of word-frequency effects in naming.Journal of Experimental Psichology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 14–24.
4.
CromerW. (1970). The difference model: A new explanation for some reading difficulties.Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 471–483.
5.
CuetosF.MitchellD. (1988) Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of Late Closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30, 73–105.
6.
DanemanM.CarpenterP. (1980). Individual diferences in working memory and reading.Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 19, 450–466.
7.
DanemanM.CarpenterP. (1983). Individual differences in integrating information between and within sentences.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 9, 561–584.
8.
De VegaM.CarreirasM.Gutierrez CalvoM.Alonso QuecutyM. L. (1990). Lectura y Comprensión: Una Perspectiva Cognitiva.Madrid: Alianza.
9.
De VegaM.CarreirasM.JiménezJ. (1993). Adaptación española de la Prueba de Comprensión Lectora de Gernsbacher. Manuscrito y programa informatizado sin publicar. Universidad de La Laguna. España.
10.
DomínguezA.CuetosF. (1992). Desarrollo de las habilidades de reconocimiento de palabras en niños con distinta competencia lectora.Cognitiva, 4 (2), 193–208.
11.
DoctorE. A.ColtheartM. (1980). Children's use of phonological encoding when reading for meaning.Memory and Cognition, 8, 195–209.
12.
EhriL.WilceL. (1983). Development of word identification speed in skilled and less skilled begining readers.Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 3–18.
13.
FosterK.I. (1979). Levels of processing and the structure of the language processor. EnCooperE. E.WalkerE. C. T. (Eds.), Sentence Processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merril Garrett.Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
14.
FrederiksenJ. R. (1981). Sources of process interactions in reading. EnLesgonldA. M.PerfettiC. A. (Eds.), Interactive processes in reading (pp. 361–386). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15.
FrostR.KatzL.BentinS. (1987). Strategies for visual word recognition and orthographic depth: A multilingual comparison.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13 (1), 104–115.
16.
GernsbacherM. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence.
17.
GernsbacherM. A.VarnerK. R.FaustM. E. (1990). Investigating differences in general comprehension skill.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16, 430–445.
18.
HogaboamT.PerfettiC. (1978). Reading skills and the role of verbal experience.Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 717–729.
19.
JustM. A.CarpenterP. A. (1987). The psychology of reading and language comprehension.Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
20.
JustM. A.CarpenterP. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in memory.Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.
21.
KatzL.FeldmanL. B. (1981). Linguistic coding in word recognition: comparisons between a deep and a shallow orthography. EnLesgoldA. M.PerfettiC. A. (Eds.), Interactive processes in reading.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22.
KingJ.JustM.A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory.Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 580–602.
23.
KwantesP.MarmurekH. C. (1995). Orthographic and lexical frequency effects in naming pseudohomophones. Poster presented at theAnnual Meeting of de Psychonomic Society. Los Ángeles.
24.
LukatelaG.TurveyM. T. (1990). Automatic and prelexical computation of phonology in visual word identification.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 2, 325–343.
25.
ManisF. (1985). Acquisiton of word identification skills in normal and disabled readers.Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 78–90.
26.
Mason (1978). From print to sound in mature readers as a function of reader ability and two forms of orthographic regularity.Memory and Cognition, 6, 568–581.
27.
McclellandJ. L.RumelhartD. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of the effects of context on perception. Part 1.Psychological Review, 88, 375–407.
28.
OakhillJ. V. (1982). Constructive processes in skilled and less-skilled comprehenders.British Journal of Psychology, 73, 13–20.
29.
OakhillJ. V.YuillN. M.Parkin (1986). On the nature of the differences between skilled and less-skilled comprehenders.Journal of Research in Reading, 9, 80–91
30.
PaapD. R.McdonaldJ. E.SchvaneveldtR. W.NoelR. W. (1985). Frequency and pronoun-ceability in visually presented naming and lexical decision tasks. EnColtheartM. (Ed.), Attention and Performance XII. The psycohology ofreading.Londres: L.E.A.
31.
PerfettiC. A. (1985). Reading Ability.New York: Oxford University Press)
32.
PerfettiC.HogaboamT. (1975)Relationship between single word decoding and reading comprehension skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 461–469.
33.
RubensteinH.LewisS. S.RubensteinM. (1971). Evidence for phonemic recoding in visual word recognition.Journal of Verbal Learning and Vebal Behaviour, 10, 645–657.
34.
SebastianN. (1991). Reading by analogy in a shallow orthography.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 471–477.
35.
SeidenberM. S.VidanovicS. (1985) Word recognition in Serbo-Croatian and English: Do they differ?. Comunicacion presentada en Psychonomic Society Meeting. Boston
36.
TurveyM. T.FeldmanL. B.LukatelaG. (1984). The servocroatian orthography constrains the reader to a phonologically analytic strategy. EnHendersonL. (Ed.), Orthographie and reading.Londres: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
37.
ValleF. (1989). Errores en lectura y escritura: un modelo dual.Cognitiva, 2, 35–63.
