Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Jun 12:4:8.
doi: 10.3389/fnevo.2012.00008. eCollection 2012.

Learning to read aligns visual analytical skills with grapheme-phoneme mapping: evidence from illiterates

Affiliations

Learning to read aligns visual analytical skills with grapheme-phoneme mapping: evidence from illiterates

Thomas Lachmann et al. Front Evol Neurosci. .

Abstract

Learning to read puts evolutionary established speech and visual object recognition functions to novel use. As we previously showed, this leads to particular rearrangements and differentiations in these functions, for instance the habitual preference for holistic perceptual organization in visual object recognition and its suppression in perceiving letters. We performed the experiment in which the differentiation between holistic non-letter processing and analytic letter processing in literates was originally shown (van Leeuwen and Lachmann, 2004) with illiterate adults. The original differentiation is absent in illiterates; they uniformly showed analytic perception for both letters and non-letters. The result implies that analytic visual perception is not a secondary development resulting from learning to read but, rather, a primary mode of perceptual organization on a par with holistic perception.

Keywords: dyslexia; flanker; grapheme-phoneme conversion; illiterate participants; letter recognition; literacy; object recognition; reading acquisition.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Example for a letter target (left column) and a similar shape target (right column) as presented isolated (first line), surrounded by a form-congruent (second line) or a form-incongruent non-target in van Leeuwen and Lachmann (2004).
Figure 2
Figure 2
The fourth out of six rows used in the paper and pencil letter identification test.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Six selections of stimuli used in the experiment for individual participants. Further explanations in the text.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Average reaction times (RTs) with error bars (5% confidence interval) for the experimental conditions for illiterate participants (left) and for literate control participants (* = significance at 5% level; ** = significance at 1% level; ns = no significant difference).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Banai K., Ahissar M. (2006). Auditory processing deficits in dyslexia: task or stimulus related? Cereb. Cortex 16, 1718–1728 10.1093/cercor/bhj107 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bavelier D., Deruelle C., Proksch J. (2000). Positive and negative compatibility effects. Percept. Psychophys. 62, 100–112 - PubMed
    1. Blomert L. (2011). The neural signature of orthographic–phonological binding in successful and failing reading development. Neuroimage 57, 695–703 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.003 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Boenke L., Ohl F., Nikolaev A., Lachmann T., van Leeuwen C. (2009). Different time courses of Stroop and Garner effects in perception – an event-related potentials study. Neuroimage 45, 1272–1288 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.01.019 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Briand K. A. (1994). Selective attention to global or local-structure of objects – alternative measures of nontarget processing. Percept. Psychophys. 55, 562–575 - PubMed