Speed Reading Articles |
|
Index Index Articles Download Registration Sub vocalization Wide your span eye Words games
|
Naming Speed Performance and Stimulant Effects Indicate Effortful, Semantic Processing Deficits in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity DisorderThis study investigated rapid automatized naming and effects of stimulant medication in school-age children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with and without concurrent reading disorder (RD). Two ADHD groups (67 ADHD only; 21 ADHD + RD) and a control group of 27 healthy age-matched peers were compared on four variables: color naming speed, letter naming speed, phonologic decoding, and arithmetic computation. Discriminant function analysis (DFA) was conducted to predict group membership. The four variables loaded onto two discriminant functions with good specificity: phonologic decoding, letter naming speed, and arithmetic defined the first function; color naming speed defined the second function. Both ADHD groups were significantly slower in color naming than controls, but did not differ from one another. DFA correctly classified 96% of the control group, 91% of ADHD + RD, and 82% of ADHD only. A subset of children in the ADHD groups participated subsequently in an acute, randomized, place bo-controlled, crossover trial with three single doses (10, 25, 20 mg) of methylphenidate. Methylphenidate selectively improved color-naming speed but had no effect on the speed of naming letters or digits. These findings challenge the tenet that naming speed deficits are specific to RD and implicate naming speed deficits associated with effortful semantic processing in ADHD, which are improved but not normalized by stimulant medication. KEY WORDS: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; reading disorder; naming speed; methylphenidate. There is general consensus that developmental reading disabilities (RD) stem from core deficits in phonologic processing that impede the acquisition of word recognition skills, which in turn impede the development of fluent reading (Bradley & Bryant, 1983; Stanovich, 1986, 1988; Torgeson & Wagner, 1998; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987; Wagner & Torgeson, 1987). Severely impaired readers are often characterized by deficits in naming speed, which involves the rapid recognition and retrieval of visually presented stimuli (Bowers et al., 1988; Denckla, 1972; Denckla & Rudel, 1976a,b; Meyer et al., 1998; Spring & Davis, 1988; Wolf, 1982, 1991). The primary focus of this study is on naming speed and its association with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a disorder that frequently co-occurs with RD (Hinshaw, 1992; Biederman et al., 1991). The link between naming speed and reading was first proposed by Geschwind & Fusillo (1966), who hypothesized that the ability of young children to name colors would be the best predictor of their reading readiness. The underlying premise was that color naming requires the same cognitive, linguistic, and perceptual processes involved in retrieving a verbal label for an abstract visual symbol, as does reading, but does not require the children to know their letters. Empirical investigation of this hypothesis using continuous naming tasks demonstrated that it is the speed of naming colors and other visual symbols rather than naming accuracy that distinguishes children with RD from other children (Denckla, 1972, 1974; Denckla & Rudel, 1976a,b). Continuous naming measures, such as the Rapid Automatized Naming tests (RAN; Denckla & Rudel, 1974, 1976a,b), require the subject to name as quickly and accurately as possible a limited set of basic visual stimuli (e.g., letters, digits, line drawings of common object s) p resented serially. Subsequent studies using these measures with cross-sectional, longitudinal, and cross-linguistic designs, have documented that children and adults with RD are slower to name visually presented stimuli, particularly when readily automatized serial and alphanumeric stimuli are used (reviewed by Wolf, 1991; Wolf, Bally, & Morris, 1986; Wolf, Bowers, & Biddle, in press). Also, these studies indicate that the naming-speed deficits cannot be attributed to English orthography, differences in articulation rate, visual scanning problems, or short-term memory difficulties (Ackerman & Dykman, 1993; Bowers, Steffey & Tate, 1988; Obregon, 1994; Wimmer, 1993). Moreover, rapid naming of digits and letters has been found to have a strong and predictive relationship to early word recognition processes (Wolf, 1991). The question of whether naming speed and phonologic deficits are separable deficits remains controversial (e.g., Wolf, 1991; Wolf & Bowers, 1999; Torgeson & Wagner, 1998). For example, one theory asserts that rapid-naming tasks measure an important dimension of phonologic skill, but do not contribute uniquely to word-reading ability (Torgeson & Wagner, 1998; Torgeson et al., 1994, 1997; Wagner et al., 1993, 1994). By contrast, an alternative model argues that naming-speed and phonologic deficits are separable sources of reading difficulties and that their combined presence leads to the most intractable forms of RD in children (Bowers & Wolf, 1993; Wolf, 1991; Wolf & Bowers, 1999). The latter model emphasizes the importance of the precise timing requirements within and across each of the multiple subprocesses involved in naming [e.g., attentional, perceptual, conceptual, memory, lexical (phonologic and semantic), and motoric], as well as the independent contributions that naming speed makes to word and te xt f luency and word identification (Wolf & Bowers, 1999). Eddie Stimpson`s slant on putting - Brief ArticleBigger clubheads, titanium drivers and hot balls are subjects all close to a golfer`s heart. Most golfers believe these are the keys to lower scores. Are they? A look at PGA Tour stats may reveal otherwise. From 1968 through the 2000 season, the average score on the PGA Tour decreased by 0.7 strokes. During that same period the number of putts per round dropped from about 30.5 in 1968 to 29.1 last year. Is this decrease of 1.4 putts per round the result of tour players hitting approach shots closer to the hole, or is it because they`re sinking putts from longer distances? New data from the U.S. Golf Association indicate the tour pros are, indeed, sinking longer putts than they did 30 or so years ago. The research also seems to suggest that a key reason for this improvement is that the greens are better and more consistent. For generations, green speeds were based on the height and quality of the blades on mowers as well as the skill and attention of the greenkeepers. In the 1940s and `50s, greens were generally mowed higher than today and were slower and more inconsistent. Golfers had to examine each putting surface and try to determine its speed. As greens became better maintained and superintendents had better access to cutting-edge agronomic techniques, green surfaces became smoother and more uniform. The downside to these advances: It became almost impossible for a golfer to read the speed of a green by observing its surface. In 1976 the director of the USGA`s Green Section, Al Radko, saw the need for a device that could be used to measure objectively the speed of greens. He showed me an invention designed by Massachusetts golfer Edward Stimpson Sr. in 1935, which I then modified, built and tested. The resulting device was the Stimpmeter. It`s a furrowed, yardstick-like track that when tilted at a certain angle releases a ball from a notch at the top end (see photo). How far the ball rolls upon its release on a flat section of the green determines the green`s speed. For instance, a "Stimpmeter" reading of 11 means that a ball, released from the device, will roll 11 feet. Using my modified design of Eddie Stimpson`s device, five members of the USGA Green Section measured greens in 35 states. From this information I devised a chart of recommended green speeds for everyday play: * Slow greens: 4.5 feet * Medium greens: 6.5 feet * Fast greens: 8.5 feet For the U.S. Open, our recommendations were: * Slow greens: 6.5 feet * Medium greens: 8.5 feet * Fast greens: 10.5 feet The Stimpmeter was first used at the U.S. Open in 1977, and for the first time the speed of the greens, including the practice putting green, were quantified and measurably consistent. Unfortunately, in the first years after its introduction, many used this device as a speedometer, with some club golfers demanding their superintendents exceed the "speed limit" for bragging rights to the fastest greens in town. (The fastest greens ever? It would be tough to beat the 14 reading recorded at the 1981 Memorial Tournament at Muirfield Village.) In recent years, this race for speed has subsided a bit, and I believe the device is now being used as it was originally intended--to quantify the speed of greens and make them as consistent and fast as the topography will allow. Thanks, Eddie, for the idea. Frank Thomas was USGA technical director from 1974 to 2000. COPYRIGHT 2001 New York Times Company Magazine Group, Inc. COPYRIGHT 2001 Gale Group Speed reading index
Copyright c 2005-2006 www.magicspeedreading.com. All Rights Reserved.
|
|
| | ||||||||||||||||