낭독이 단어 인지에 미치는 효과를 조사하기 위해서 두 개의 실험을 실시하였다. 실험 1에서는 사전처치(낭독, 묵독, 심적회전)에 따라 명명과 어휘판단의 수행이 어떻게 달라지는지 조사하였다. 실험 1의 결과, 낭독의 효과는 유의하게 나타나지 않았다. 실험 2에서는 개인의 독서습관(음운변환 대 음운무변환)에 따른 낭독의 효과를 조사하였다. 실험 2의 결과, 음운무변환자가 음운변환자보다 명명에서 더 큰 낭독 효과를 보여주었다. 한편, 어휘판단에서는, 음운변환자는 묵독 조건에서, 음운무변환자는 낭독 조건에서, 수행이 더 좋았다. 이러한 결과는, 낭독의 효과가 음운변환과 관련한 독서습관에 따라 달라질 수 있음을 시사한다.
Two experiments were conducted to investigate the effects of oral reading on word recognition. Experiment 1 aimed to examine how naming and lexical decision performances differ as a function of pre-task treatment: oral reading, silent reading, and non-verbal mental rotation. The results of Experiment 1 revealed no significant effect of oral reading on naming and lexical decision. In Experiment 2, how individual differences in subvocalization during reading modulates effects of oral reading was explored. For this, subvocalizers and non-subvocalizers were divided according to their scores in the articulatory suppression task. The results showed that subvocalizers performed naming better after a 10-minute oral reading practice. But, for lexical decision, subvocalizers did better in the silent reading condition, whereas non-subvocalizers did better in oral reading condition. The results from the two experiments were explained in terms of facilitaions in lexical access.
Two experiments were conducted to investigate the effects of oral reading on word recognition. Experiment 1 aimed to examine how naming and lexical decision performances differ as a function of pre-task treatment: oral reading, silent reading, and non-verbal mental rotation. The results of Experiment 1 revealed no significant effect of oral reading on naming and lexical decision. In Experiment 2, how individual differences in subvocalization during reading modulates effects of oral reading was explored. For this, subvocalizers and non-subvocalizers were divided according to their scores in the articulatory suppression task. The results showed that subvocalizers performed naming better after a 10-minute oral reading practice. But, for lexical decision, subvocalizers did better in the silent reading condition, whereas non-subvocalizers did better in oral reading condition. The results from the two experiments were explained in terms of facilitaions in lexical access.
