No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
Poor readers (PRs) and controls (i.e., normal readers) from the second, fourth, and sixth grades were compared on four tasks chosen to measure the development of selective attention. The PRs performed more poorly than controls on the central but not on the incidental portion of an auditory memory task. The differences on the central task were interpreted as a function of group differences in mnemonic skills rather than selective attention. There were no group differences on either central or incidental portions of a visual memory task. In a speeded classification task, PRs exhibited a slower rate of information processing, measured in bits of information transmitted per second, than controls, but this difference in rate was not affected by distraction. On a dichotic listening task, PRs performed more poorly than controls under a variety of conditions in which the presence of distraction, the rate of information presentation, and attended ear were manipulated; the pattern of differences obtained, however, was not readily interpretable as a function of greater distractibility on the part of PRs than controls. As a whole, the results did not support the hypothesis that PRs show deficits in selective attention relative to age-matched normal readers. In addition, correlations computed among indices of selectivity (residualized gain scores) derived from the four tasks were uniformly low, suggesting that the four tasks did not measure the same cognitive construct. The implications for the study of reading disabilities and for the construct of selective attention in developmental studies are discussed.
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 29 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.