This study tested the assumption that learning disabled children have limited word knowledge structures and such limitations influence hemispheric processing. Two competing theoretical accounts were also tested. Learning disabled and nondisabled readers were compared on dichotic listening recall tasks that included semantic, phonemic and structural orienting instructions. Dependent measures were degree of lateralization, free recall, clustering, and selective attention. As expected, recall increases were a function of group, orienting instructions, and level of word processing. Most importantly, the results clearly demonstrated that group recall differences interact with orienting instructions. The ability group differences in dichotic listening were attributed to word knowledge (ability to activate word features congruent with the orienting task) rather than differences in hemispheric capacity or selective attention, per se.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, J. (1976). Language, memory and thought, Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2.
Battig, W. &Montague, W. (1969). Category norms for verbal items in categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph80, 3. pt. 2.
3.
Belmore, S. (1980). Depth of processing and ear differences in memory for sentences. Neuropsy-chologia18, 657–663.
4.
Cermak, L. (1983). Information processing deficits in children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities16, 599–605.
5.
Chi, M.T.H. (1978). Knowledge structure and memory development. In R. Siegler (Ed.), Carnegie-Mellon Symposium On Cognition. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6.
Craik, F. I. &Simon, E. (1980). Age differences in memory: The roles of attention and depth of processing. In L. Poon et. al.New Directions in Memory and Aging. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7.
Friedman, A., &Polson, M. (1981). Hemispheres as independent resource systems: Limited-capacity processing and cerebral specialization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance7, 1031–1058.
8.
Friedman, A., Polson, M.C., Dafoc, C. &Gaskill, S. (1982). Dividing attention within and between hemispheres: Testing a multiple resources approach to limited-capacity information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance8, 625–650.
9.
Haskins, H. (1949). A phonetically balanced test of speech discrimination for children. Unpublished master's thesis, Northwestern University.
10.
Hellige, J. B. &Wong, T. M. (1983). Hemisphere-specific interference in dichotic listening: Task variables and individual differences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General112, 218–239.
11.
Hunt, R. R., &Mitchell, D. (1982). Implement effects of semantic and nonsemantic distinctiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition8, 81–87.
12.
Jones, B. (1983). Measuring degree of cerebral lateralization in children as a function of age. Developmental Psychology19, 237–242.
13.
Jules, B., Schumer, R. A. (1981). Early visual perception. Annual Review of Psychology32, 575–627.
14.
Kershner, J., Henninger, P. &Ceoke, W. (1984). Writing induces a right hemisphere linguistic advantage in dysphonetic dyslexie children: Implications for attention and capacity models of laterality. Brain and Language21, 105–122.
15.
Kinsbourne, M. (1977). The mechanism of hemispheric control of the lateral gradient of attention. In P. Rabbitand S. Dormic (Eds.), Attention and Performance V. New York: Academic Press.
16.
Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Potomac. Md.: Erlbaum.
17.
Obrzut, J., Hynd, G., Obrzut, A., &Pirozzolo, F. (1981). Effect of directed attention on cerebral asymmetries in normal and learning disabled children. Development Psychology17, 118–125.
18.
Obrzut, J. E., Obrzut, A., Bryden, M. P., & Bartels, S. G. (1984). Information processing and speech lateralization in learning disabled children. Manuscript submitted for publication.
19.
Oldfield, R. (1971). The assessment and analysis a handedness. The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia9, 97–113.
20.
Roenker, D. L., Thompson, L. &Brown, S.C. (1971). Comparison of measures for the estimation of clustering in free recall. Psychological Bulletin76, 45–48.
21.
Sergent, J. (1983). Role of input in visual hemispheric asymmetries. Psychological Bulletin93, 481–512.
22.
Shankweiler, D., Liberman, I., Mark, Fowler, C., &Fisher, F. (1979). The speech code and learning to read. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory5, 531–545.
23.
Sidtis, J., Volpe, B., Holtzman, J., Wilson, D., &Gazzaniga, M. (1981). Cognitive interaction after stages callosal section: Evidence for transfer of semantic activation. Science212, 344–346.
24.
Slosson, R. (1963). Slosson Oral Reading Test. East Aurora, N.Y.: Slosson Publications.
25.
Swanson, H. L. &Mullen, R. C. (1983). Hemispheric specialization in learning disabled readers' recall as a function of age and level of processing. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology35, 457–477.
26.
Thorndyke, E. L., &Lorge, I. (1941). The teacher's wordbook of 30,000 words. New York: Columbia University Press, 1941.
27.
Torgesen, J. (1977). Memorization processes in reading disabled children. Journal of Educational Psychology69, 471–478.
28.
Tulving, E., &Thompson, D., (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval process in episodic memory. Psychological Review80, 352–373.
