Tracking the acquisition of orthographic skills in developing readers: Masked priming effects
Abstract
A masked priming procedure was used to explore developmental changes in the tuning of lexical word recognition processes. Lexical tuning was assessed by examining the degree of masked form priming and used two different types of prime-target lexical similarity: one letter different (e.g., rlay-->PLAY) and transposed letters (e.g., lpay-->PLAY). The performance of skilled adult readers was compared with that of developing readers in Grade 3. The same children were then tested again two years later, when they were in Grade 5. The skilled adult readers showed no form priming, indicating that their recognition mechanisms for these items had become finely tuned. In contrast, the Grade 3 readers showed substantial form priming effects for both measures of lexical similarity. When retested in Grade 5, the developing readers no longer showed significant one letter different priming, but transposed letter priming remained. In general, these results provide evidence for a transition from more broadly tuned to more finely tuned lexical recognition mechanisms and are interpreted in the context of models of word recognition.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Development of parallel orthographic processing increases sensitivity to orthographic priming.
“(3) an increased sensitivity to orthographic priming (e.g., Castles et al., 2007; Acha and Perea, 2008)”
From A Dual-Route Approach to Orthographic Processing (2011) · cites this paper as Castles et al., 2007
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert
Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100618772271 · Cited by 1,297 · see citing works
Self-citationA Dual-Route Approach to Orthographic Processing
Grainger, J., & Ziegler, J. C. (2011) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00054 · Cited by 459 · see citing works
Lexical Quality and Reading Skill: Bottom-Up and Top-Down Contributions to Sentence Processing
Hersch, J., & Andrews, S. (2012) · Scientific Studies of Reading · doi:10.1080/10888438.2011.564244 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
- Authors
- Castles, A., Davis, C., Cavalot, P., & Forster, K.
- Affiliations
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- University of Arizona (US)
- Corresponding author
- Castles, Anne
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2007-07
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 165-182
- ISSN
- 0022-0965 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2051032393
- Cited by
- 163
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 16
- FWCI
- 6.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Child Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Keywords
- spelling development, word recognition, masked priming, form priming, letter similarity, reading acquisition, developmental changes, children's reading
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Cognition, Humans, Learning, Perceptual Masking, Reading, Vocabulary, Recognition, Psychology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review