Biomedical subjects

K Rastle

Publications and source records attributed to K Rastle.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2001

DRC: a dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud.

This article describes the Dual Route Cascaded (DRC) model, a computational model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. The DRC is a computational realization of the dual-route theory of reading, and is the only computational model of reading that can perform the 2 tasks most commonly used to study reading: lexical decision and reading aloud. For both tasks, the authors show that a wide variety of variables that influence human latencies influence the DRC model's latencies in exactly the same way. The DRC model simulates a number of such effects that other computational models of reading do not, but there appear to be no effects that any other current computational model of reading can simulate but that the DRC model cannot. The authors conclude that the DRC model is the most successful of the existing computational models of reading.

Dyslexia↗

PubMed2000

Reading aloud begins when the computation of phonology is complete.

Naming latency experiments in which monosyllabic items are read aloud are based on the assumption that the vocal response is not initiated until the phonology of the entire syllable has been computed. Recently, this assumption has been challenged by A. H. Kawamoto, C. T. Kello, R. Jones, and K. Bame (1998), who argued instead that the reading-aloud response begins as soon as the initial phoneme is computed. This view would be refuted by evidence of anticipatory coarticulation effects on the initial phoneme due to the nature of the following vowel in the speeded reading-aloud task. The authors provide such evidence.

Humans↗

PubMed2000

Serial processing in reading aloud: reply to Zorzi (2000).

K. Rastle and M. Coltheart (1999; see also M. Coltheart & K. Rastle, 1994) reported data demonstrating that the cost of irregularity in reading aloud low-frequency exception words is modulated by the position of the irregularity in the word. They argued that these data implicated a serial process and falsified all models of reading aloud that operate solely in parallel, a conclusion that M. Zorzi (2000) challenged by successfully simulating the position of irregularity effect with such a model. Zorzi (2000) further claimed that a reanalysis of K. Rastle and M. Coltheart's (1999) data demonstrates sensitivity to grapheme-phoneme consistency (which he claimed was confounded across the position of irregularity manipulation) rather than the use of a serial process. Here, the authors argue that M. Zorzi's (2000) reanalyses were inappropriate and reassert that K. Rastle and M. Coltheart's (1999) findings are evidence for serial processing.

Humans↗