The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Specific Role of Inhibition in Reading Comprehension in Good and Poor Comprehenders
Abstract
Difficulties in inhibitory processes have been shown to characterize the performance of poor comprehenders. However, the inhibitory inefficiency of poor comprehenders is most often assessed by their resistance to proactive interference, that is, the ability to suppress off-goal task information from working memory (WM). In two studies tasks assessing resistance to proactive interference (intrusion errors), response to distracters (Text With Distracters task) and prepotent response inhibition (Stroop and Hayling tests), along with WM measures, were administered to children aged 10 to 11, both good and poor comprehenders. The aim of the study was to specifically determine whether general or specific inhibitory factors affect poor comprehenders’ reading difficulties. Results showed that poor comprehenders, compared to good ones, are impaired in WM tasks and in inhibitory tasks that assess resistance to proactive interference. This suggests that reading comprehension difficulties of poor comprehenders are related to specific inhibitory problems.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The relations among inhibition and interference control functions: A latent-variable analysis.
Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.101 · Cited by 2,309 · cited 7×
“…efficiency of inhibition-related mechanisms, presenting to poor comprehender and good comprehender children tasks that represent the three inhibitory-related functions— prepotent response inhibition, response to distracter inhibition, and resistance to PI—as proposed by Friedman and Miyake (2004).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialNigg, J. T. (2000) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.220 · Cited by 1,941 · cited 7×
“, 2009) and with a nonunitary view of inhibition (e.g., Dempster, 1991; Friedman & Miyake, 2004; Nigg, 2000), confirming that the distinction between different inhibition functions is pertinent also in learning disabilities.”
BackgroundInfluentialResponse suppression, initiation and strategy use following frontal lobe lesions
Burgess, P. W., & Shallice, T. (1996) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/0028-3932(95)00104-2 · Cited by 854 · cited 1×
“The Hayling test (adapted from Burgess & Shallice, 1996; see Borella, Carretti, & De Beni, 2008; De Beni, Borella, Carretti, Marigo, & Nava, 2008) consists of 28 high-cloze sentences in which the last word is missing.”
MethodMacrorules for summarizing texts: the development of expertise
Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(83)80002-4 · Cited by 711
Investigating differences in general comprehension skill.
Gernsbacher, M. A., Varner, K. R., & Faust, M. E. (1990) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037//0278-7393.16.3.430 · Cited by 670
The mechanism of suppression: A component of general comprehension skill.
Gernsbacher, M. A., & Faust, M. E. (1991) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037//0278-7393.17.2.245 · Cited by 587
Carretti, B., Borella, E., Cornoldi, C., & De Beni, R. (2009) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.10.002 · Cited by 435
Self-citationAge and reading: The impact of distraction.
Connelly, S. L., Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1991) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037//0882-7974.6.4.533 · Cited by 431
An interactive framework for examining prefrontal cognitive processes
Roberts, R. J., & Pennington, B. F. (1996) · Developmental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/87565649609540642 · Cited by 392
Working Memory Deficits in Poor Comprehenders Reflect Underlying Language Impairments
Nation, K., Adams, J. W., Bowyer-Crane, C. A., & Snowling, M. J. (1999) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1006/jecp.1999.2498 · Cited by 357
Cited by
Diamond, A. (2013) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750 · Cited by 13,268
Diamond, A., & Ling, D. S. (2016) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2015.11.005 · Cited by 1,177
Activities and Programs That Improve Children’s Executive Functions
Diamond, A. (2012) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721412453722 · Cited by 750
Ludyga, S., Gerber, M., Brand, S., Holsboer‐Trachsler, E., & Pühse, U. (2016) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/psyp.12736 · Cited by 589
Parental Behaviours Predicting Early Childhood Executive Functions: a Meta-Analysis
Valcan, D. S., Davis, H., & Pino-Pasternak, D. (2018) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-017-9411-9 · Cited by 364
Metadata
- Authors
- Borella, E., Carretti, B., & Pelegrina, S.
- Venue
- Journal of Learning Disabilities
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2010-07-06
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 541-552
- ISSN
- 0022-2194 (ISSN-L)
- 1538-4780
- OpenAlex
- W2124096235
- Cited by
- 419
- References
- 37
- FWCI
- 13.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Specific Role of Inhibition in Reading Comprehension in Good and Poor Comprehenders. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0022219410371676
- The paper
- Borella, E., Carretti, B., & Pelegrina, S. (2010). The Specific Role of Inhibition in Reading Comprehension in Good and Poor Comprehenders. Journal of Learning Disabilities. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219410371676
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
