Brain and Cognition 57 (2005) 189–194

www.elsevier.com/locate/b&c

Influence of auditory–verbal, visual–verbal, visual,

and visual–visual processing speed on reading and spelling
at the end of Grade 1
Monique Plazaa,*, Henri Cohenb
a
Laboratoire Cognition et Développement, CNRS, Paris, France
b
Centre de Neuroscience de la Cognition, Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada

Accepted 12 August 2004

Abstract

This study examined cognitive processing speed through four modalities (auditory–verbal, visual–verbal, visual, and visual–vi-
sual) at the end of Grade 1 and how it influences reading and spelling. The subjects were 124 French-speaking children, selected
for their contrasting performance on reading and spelling tasks. The children in the first group (N = 69) were average readers;
the second group of children (N = 55) performed worse or much worse on all reading and spelling tasks. The experimental design
consisted of a set of 10 tasks administered in two sessions. The major findings reveal that: (1) the children with reading difficulties
displayed low and slow performance on most cognitive tasks, whatever the modality; (2) auditory–verbal and visual–verbal process-
ing speed significantly predicted written language, which was not the case with the visual modalities; and (3) that visual problems did
not appear to be a potential cause of reading problems in most delayed readers. The findings also confirm the independence of pho-
nological and naming-speed skills in reading development and reading impairment.
Ó 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction recognizes the importance of phonological processing,

It is widely accepted that phonological awareness is
one of the best predictors of reading ability. Current
dyslexia research has provided evidence to the effect that
phonological processing deficits play a critical role in
reading impairments (Bryant, Nunes, & Bindman,
1998; Catts, 1993; Liberman & Shankweiler, 1991; Wag-
ner & Torgesen, 1993; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte,
1994).
However, the evident importance of phonological
skills for the acquisition of the alphabetic principle has
distracted attention from the fact that reading acquisi-
tion also involves non-linguistic skills. An alternative
neuropsychological research strategy has emerged that
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: plaza@psycho.univ-paris5.fr (M. Plaza).
but focuses on cognitive processes that may account
for non-linguistic correlates of reading impairment.
The ‘‘temporal’’ hypothesis suggests that temporal
resolution deficits manifested clinically in the language
impairments of dyslexic subjects will also be expressed
in their time-dependent non-linguistic behavior related
to manual actions (Denckla, 1979; Wolff, Michel,
Drake, & Ovrut, 1990), auditory and/or visual stimuli
processing (Bakker, 1972; Tallal, 1980; Tallal, Miller,
& Fitch, 1993; Watson & Miller, 1993). According to
Klein (2002) the temporal processing deficit could be re-
lated to (a) rate of information processing, (b) increased
smudging of signals over time, or (c) increased jitters in
the assignment of features to moments in time.
The ‘‘visual’’ hypothesis suggests that visual process-
ing deficits occur in developmental dyslexia, involving a
disturbance of the magnocellular pathway (Lovegrove &

0278-2626/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2004.08.043
190 M. Plaza, H. Cohen / Brain and Cognition 57 (2005) 189–194
Slaghuis, 1989; Slaghuis, Lovegrove, & Davidson,
1993), decreased sensitivity to low contrast (Stein, Tal-
cott, & Walsh, 2000), abnormal processing of visual mo-
tion (Demb, Bynton, & Heeger, 1998), and/or visual
attentional disorders. In fact the visual hypothesis was,
and remains, controversial (Hulme, 1988; Stein et al.,
2000), and might apply to a restricted group of dyslexic
children with surface dyslexia (Valdois et al., 2003).
The ‘‘cross-modal’’ hypothesis suggests that dyslexic
children have difficulties associating verbal labels with
visual stimuli (Mayringer & Wimmer, 2000; Windfuhr
& Snowling, 2001). This paired associate learning defi-
cit could produce effects on learning to read that are
independent of those that follow from phonological
awareness problems. Mayringer and Wimmer (2000)
suggest that visual–verbal paired associate learning
ability taps into the ability to establish word-specific
orthographies for words. In turn, this learning difficulty
might prevent the development of automaticity in read-
ing. By contrast, data concerning visual–visual (e.g.,
non-verbal) paired associate learning show that dyslexic
children perform similarly to normal readers (Liber-
man, Mann, Shankweiler, & Werfman, 1982; Nelson
& Warrington, 1980; Rapala & Brady, 1990; Vellutino,
Steger, & Pruzek, 1973) and that they do not have
any problems with non-verbal learning (Vellutino,
Steger, Harding, & Phillips, 1975; Vellutino, Scanlon,
& Spearing, 1995).
Other researchers link the temporal, visual–verbal,
and cross-modal hypotheses. Breznitz (2002) claims that
the verbal and visual systems process information differ-
ently. Discrimination and identification are achieved
faster through the visual than the auditory route. Suc-
cessful word recognition may require the auditory and
visual aspects of printed words to be combined in the
brain within a certain time frame. In that sense, reading
disability is hypothesized to be based on speed of pro-
cessing deficits, which affect the connections between
the visual/orthographic and auditory/phonological
routes (Breznitz, 2002). Wolf, Bowers, and Biddle
(2000), Wolf et al. (2002) propose the ‘‘double-deficit’’
hypothesis, which incorporates both phonology and
naming-speed processes as sources of reading break-
down. The cognitive structure of naming speed is con-
ceptualized as a temporally ordered ensemble of
perceptual processes (visual detection, discrimination
and recognition), lexical processes (word retrieval) and
motor processes (articulation) (Wolf et al., 2000, 2002).
Our previous studies showed that in French, phono-
logical awareness and naming speed account for a signif-
icant proportion of independent variance in reading, at
the end of Grade 1 (Plaza & Cohen, 2003) and from
Grade 1 to Grade 2 (Plaza & Cohen, 2004). The present
study was conducted to explore the influence of audi-
tory–verbal, visual–verbal, visual, and visual–visual pro-
cessing speed on reading acquisition. The assessment
was conducted at the end of Grade 1, after one year
of reading instruction, in a group of 124 children (55
poor readers and 69 average readers). The auditory–ver-
bal modality was assessed through a phoneme elision
task, the visual–verbal modality through three naming-
speed tasks, the visual modality through a visual atten-
tion task, and the visual–visual modality through a cod-
ing visual-matching task. Each task was timed, and
scoring took into account both speed and accuracy.
To explore the influence of each modality on reading
performance, comparative analyses between poor and
average readers were done, and hierarchical regression
analyses were conducted for the group of children as a
whole.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Two groups of French-speaking children were re-
cruited from the first-grade classrooms of eight schools.
The criteria for selecting the sample were based on four
reading and spelling tasks involving syllable, word, and
sentence reading, and word and pseudoword spelling.
The mean age of the children was 82 months. The 69
children of the first group were average readers and
spellers; the second group of 55 children exhibited low
or very low performance on all tasks.
2.2. Instruments and procedure
The children were tested in two sessions, at the end of
Grade 1, at school. The first assessment was done in a
group setting, while the second session was individually
administered.
2.2.1. Group session
The group session included four reading and spelling
tasks; two of them derived from a reading battery (Ini-
zan, 2000) and two others were experimental. The tasks
were administered at school by the childrenÕs teachers.
1. Word discrimination. Children were asked to select 12
words uttered by the teacher, each word being
included in a set of four similar words (e.g., the child
had to select pocher from among the set cacher/
cocher/pocher/rocher).
2. Syllable discrimination. Children were asked to select
nine syllables uttered by the teacher, from among a
list of 20 items which included similar items (e.g.,
foul/flou or cra/car).
3. Word spelling. Children were asked to spell 20 com-
mon words dictated by the teacher.
4. Pseudoword spelling. Children were asked to spell 12
pseudowords dictated by the teacher.
 M. Plaza, H. Cohen / Brain and Cognition 57 (2005) 189–194
2.2.2. Individual session
Eight tasks were administered, including assessment
of reading, auditory–verbal, visual–verbal, visual–visu-
al, and visual modalities. All tasks were timed in order
to assess both accuracy and processing speed.
2.2.2.1. Reading tasks.
(a) Accuracy of single-word identification was assessed
using a ‘‘One-Minute Test’’ (Khomsi, 1999), which
requires the child to read as many words aloud as
possible in one minute.
(b) Ability to use phonic skills to decode words was
assessed through an experimental pseudoword read-
ing test, used in previous studies, which requires the
child to read 12 pseudowords aloud. Reading time
was measured.
2.2.2.2. Cognitive tasks
. with average readers, poor readers had significant
(a) Auditory–verbal processing: phonological awareness
task. The child was asked to delete the initial phoneme
of orally presented pseudowords and to pronounce
the resulting pseudowords (e.g., /pouk/without/p/be-
comes/ouk/). The list included six monosyllabic and
six disyllabic pseudowords, with nine vowels and
three consonants in the initial position. The task
was timed.
(b) Visual–verbal processing: naming speed. The three
tasks, involving digits, letters, and colors, derived
from the RAN Test (Denckla & Rudel, 1974). The
child was asked to quickly name a visual array of 48
stimuli, consisting of four items that are presented
12 times each in random order. The naming tasks
were timed.
(c) Visual–visual processing: matching coding task. The
child was asked to visually match digits and visual
graphic (non-alphabetic) stimuli, using a code.
The 32 stimuli consisted of five stimuli presented sev-
eral times in random order. The coding task was timed.
(d) Visual processing: visual attention task. The child
was asked to search for a target (a letter-like sym-
bol) in a visual array of 100 stimuli which included
20 targets and 80 distractors (which were visually
similar letter-like symbols). The task was timed.
3. Results
3.1. Analyses of variance
3.1.1. Comparative performance of average and poor
readers on group reading and spelling tasks
In comparison with average readers, poor readers
performed below 2 standard deviations on word
191
discrimination [F (1, 123) = 64.3, p < .0001], syllable dis-
crimination [F (1, 123) = 118.12, p < .0001], word spell-
ing [F (1, 123) = 323.35, p < .0001], and pseudoword
spelling [F (1, 123) = 323.2, p < .0001]. The most difficult
tasks were those involving spelling. With regard to read-
ing, syllable discrimination was more difficult than word
discrimination.
3.1.2. Comparative performance of average and poor
readers on individual reading tasks
In comparison with average readers, poor readers
exhibited significant difficulties with pseudoword read-
ing [F (1, 123) = 350.10, p < .0001] and word reading
[F (1, 123) = 160.5, p < .0001].
3.1.3. Cognitive processing speed
3.1.3.1. Comparative performance of average and poor
readers in the auditory–verbal modality. In comparison
difficulties with the phoneme elision task. They per-
formed worse [F (1, 123) = 274.9, p < .0001] and
more slowly [F (1, 123) = 31.1, p < .0001] than their
age-peers.
3.1.3.2. Comparative performance of average and poor
readers in the visual–verbal modality. In comparison with
average readers, poor readers exhibited impaired perfor-
mance on digit, letter, and color naming tasks. Although
their accuracy scores were significantly different from
those of average readers, they committed few qualitative
errors. By contrast, their processing speed was slower
for digit naming [F (1, 123) = 30.6], p = .0009], letter
naming [F (1, 123) = 41.8, p < .0001], and color naming
[F (1, 123) = 25.2, p < .0001].
3.1.3.3. Comparative performance of average and poor
readers in the visual–visual modality. In comparison with
average readers, poor readers performed slower on the
visual-matching task [F (1, 123) = 12.5, p = .0006] and
committed more qualitative errors [F (1, 123) = 9.3,
p = .002].
3.1.3.4. Comparative performance of average and poor
readers in the visual modality. Average and poor readers
performed similarly on the visual attention task, with re-
gard to both accuracy [F (1, 123) = 1.9, NS] and process-
ing speed [F (1, 123) = 0.8, NS].
3.2. Intercorrelations among reading accuracy and the
independent variables
Scores on the six reading and spelling tasks were
averaged to yield a composite measure of written lan-
guage skills. On the other hand, in order to take into ac-
count both accuracy and processing speed for the
independent variables, the scores which were used in
192 M. Plaza, H. Cohen / Brain and Cognition 57 (2005) 189–194

the following statistical analyses were calculated on the
basis of an accuracy/time ratio.
The correlations among the variables are displayed in
Table 1.
Most of the correlations were sizable. Nevertheless,
written language was highly correlated with phoneme
elision (.80, p < .001), letter naming (.64, p < .001), digit
naming (.57, p < .001), and color naming (.49, p < .001).
In order to determine whether the auditory–verbal,
visual–verbal, visual–visual, or visual modalities could
account for reading ability in Grade 1, several hierarchi-
cal multiple regression analyses were performed and are
shown in Table 2. To determine whether one variable
significantly predicts reading after the other variables
have been statistically controlled, each variable was,
respectively, entered at Step 1, Step 2, Step 3, and Step
4. Letter naming speed was chosen to represent the vi-
sual–verbal modality since it was the most significant
variable.
Table 2 indicates that: (a) auditory–verbal and vi-
sual–verbal processing speed accounted for a significant
proportion of the variance in written language when
entered at any step, (b) visual attention processing
accounted for a significant proportion of the variance
in written language only when entered at Step 1 or 2
before auditory–verbal and visual–verbal processing,

Table 1
Correlations among written language and processing speed measures
Written language Digit naming Letter naming Color naming Visual attention Phoneme elision Coding
Written language 1
Digit naming .57 1
Letter naming .64 .83 1
Color naming .49 .68 .17 1
Visual attention .32 .29 .33 .17 1
Phoneme elision .80 .54 .63 .49 .31 1
Coding .35 .42 .40 .46 .25 .28 1
Note. Correlations greater than .19 are significant at the .05 level, correlations greater than .25 are significant at the .01 level, and correlations greater
than .32 are significant at the .001 level.

Table 2
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis for experimental variables predicting written language
Step Variable entered R R2 change p Value
1 Auditory–verbal .79 .63 <.0001
2 Visual–verbal .81 .3 .001
3 Visual–visual .81 0 NS
4 Visual .82 .2 NS
2 Visual–visual .8 .1 .04
3 Visual .81 .2 NS
4 Visual–verbal .82 .4 .008
2 Visual .8 .1 .01
3 Visual–visual .81 .2 .01
4 Visual–verbal .82 .4 .008
1 Letter naming .66 .43 <.0001
2 Phoneme elision .81 .23 <.0001
3 Visual attention .82 .1 NS
4 Visual–visual .82 .1 NS
2 Visual–visual .66 .1 NS
3 Visual attention .67 .1 NS
4 Visual–verbal .82 .23 <.0001
2 Visual .67 .2 NS
3 Visual–verbal .67 .1 NS
4 Verbal–visual .82 .23 <.0001
1 Visual–visual .36 .13 <.0001
2 Visual .45 .7 <.0001
3 Auditory–verbal .81 .44 <.0001
4 Visual–verbal .82 .4 .008
1 Visual .31 .09 .0004
2 Visual–visual .45 .2 <.0001
3 Auditory–visual .81 .37 <.0001
4 Visual–verbal .82 .4 .008
 M. Plaza, H. Cohen / Brain and Cognition 57 (2005) 189–194
(c) visual–visual processing accounted for a significant
proportion of the variance when entered at Step 1 or
at Step 2 after visual or auditory–verbal processing,
but not when entered after visual–verbal processing.
The results show that auditory–verbal and visual–verbal
processing accounted for significant unique variance,
which was not the case for the visual and visual–visual
modalities.
4. Discussion
The aim of this paper was to determine whether writ-
ten language at the end of Grade 1 was best predicted by
auditory–verbal, visual–verbal, visual–visual, or visual
processing speed. The auditory–verbal modality was
assessed through a phoneme elision timed task, which
requires the ability to orally perceive, isolate and manip-
ulate phonemic units, and to produce verbal units. The
visual–verbal modality was assessed through three nam-
ing-speed tasks, involving digits, letters, and colors. The
visual–visual ability was assessed through a coding
timed task, which requires visual matching. The visual
modality was assessed through a visual attentional task,
which requires visual scanning and fine-grain visual
analysis.
The subjects in the study were 124 children; 69 of
them exhibited average reading and spelling perfor-
mance and 55 poor or very poor performance.
The correlation matrix supported the hypothesis that
written language implicates auditory–verbal, visual–ver-
bal, visual–visual, and visual processing speed. Never-
theless, comparative data between the two groups of
children showed that, although poor readers performed
significantly worse and more slowly than average read-
ers in the auditory–verbal, visual–verbal, and visual–vi-
sual modalities, the two groups performed similarly in
the visual modality. The multiple regression analysis re-
stricted the area of hypothesis, demonstrating that writ-
ten language skills were significantly linked to the
auditory–verbal and visual–verbal modalities, which ac-
counted for 66% of the variance. Visual and visual–visu-
al abilities, by contrast, failed to account for any
significant unique variance once auditory–verbal and vi-
sual–verbal modalities were partialed out.
The strong involvement of the auditory–verbal
modality was not surprising, inasmuch as phonological
awareness, and particularly phonemic awareness, is
known to be both a strong predictor of reading and a
consequence of reading efficiency in alphabetic lan-
guages. Young children who have not yet begun to read
may easily perceive and manipulate syllables, which are
perceptually salient, but they do not clearly perceive pho-
nemes, which are more ‘‘abstract’’ units (Plaza, 2001).
For a long time, researchers have subsumed reading
speed under phonological processes. However, many
193
authors now claim that the processes underlying naming
speed and phonological awareness are dramatically dif-
ferent. In naming-speed tasks, the child first becomes
familiar with the visual and phonological features of
four items, which occur 12 times. Thus, the subject is
not required to retrieve phonological codes for words
from long-term memory, but only to refresh them in
working memory. Secondly, naming-speed tasks are
cross-modal; they require simultaneous visual and
verbal processing. Finally, naming-speed tasks require
rapid transitions from one item to another, with con-
stant processing of inhibition and activation. Naming
speed and reading share the second and third features
listed.
The visual–visual task and the naming-speed tasks
share the same emphasis on working memory and visual
processing. This probably explains why the visual–visual
modality (coding matching task) significantly correlated
with reading when entered in the regression equation at
Step 2, after the auditory–verbal modality, and was no
longer significant when entered after visual–verbal nam-
ing-speed tasks.
The pure visual modality did not differentiate be-
tween average and poor readers. Although fine-grain vi-
sual analysis is required in the process of reading, this
variable did not appear in our sample as a significant
variable for explaining individual differences between
average and poor readers. The absence of any influence
by visual modalities is in accordance with data concern-
ing visual processing and visual–visual paired associate
learning, which showed that poor readers perform simi-
larly to normal readers (Rapala & Brady, 1990; Vellu-
tino et al., 1995).
These findings, which confirm the independence of
naming speed from phonological processing, also
emphasize the influence of visual–verbal and auditory–
verbal processing speed on reading. Cross-modal vi-
sual–verbal processing speed seems to be of particular
relevance for learning to read—as much as, or even
more than, phonological awareness.
References
Bakker, D. J. (1972). Temporal order in disturbed reading: develop-
mental and neuropsychological aspects in normal and reading
retarded children. Rotterdam: Rotterdam University Press.
Breznitz, Z. (2002). Asynchrony of visual-orthographic and auditory-
phonological word recognition processes: an underlying factor in
dyslexia. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15,
15–42.
Bryant, P., Nunes, T., & Bindman, M. (1998). Awareness of language
in children who have reading difficulties. Historical comparisons in
a longitudinal study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
39, 501–510.
Catts, H. (1993). The relationships between speech-language impair-
ments and reading disabilities. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research, 36, 948–958.
194 M. Plaza, H. Cohen / Brain and Cognition 57 (2005) 189–194
Demb, J., Bynton, G. M., & Heeger, D. J. (1998). Functional magnetic
resonance imaging of early visual pathways in dyslexia. The Journal
of Neuroscience, 18, 6939–6951.
Denckla, M. B. (1979). Childhood learning disabilities. In K. M.
Heilman & E. E. Valenstein (Eds.), Clinical neuropsychology
(pp. 535–576). New York: Oxford University Press.
Denckla, M. B., & Rudel, R. O. (1974). Rapid automatized naming of
pictured objects, colors, letters, and numbers by normal children.
Cortex, 10, 186–202.
Hulme, C. (1988). The implausibility of low-level visual deficits as a
cause of childrenÕs reading difficulties. Cognitive Neuropsychology,
5, 369–374.
Inizan, A. (2000). Le temps dÕapprendre à lire. Paris: Éditions et
Applications Psychologiques.
Khomsi, A. (1999). LMC-R. Paris: les Editions du Centre de
Psychologie Appliquée.
Klein, R. (2002). Observations on the temporal correlates of reading
failure. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15,
207–232.
Liberman, I. Y., Mann, V., Shankweiler, D., & Werfman, M. (1982).
ChildrenÕs memory for recurring linguistic and non-linguistic
material in relation to reading ability. Cortex, 18, 367–375.
Liberman, I. Y., & Shankweiler, D. (1991). Phonology and beginning
to read. In L. Rieben & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read
(pp. 3–17). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lovegrove, W. J., & Slaghuis, W. (1989). How reliably are visual
differences found in dyslexics?. Irish Journal of Psychology, 10,
542–550.
Mayringer, H., & Wimmer, H. (2000). Pseudoname learning by
German speaking children with dyslexia: evidence for a phonolog-
ical learning deficit. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 75,
116–133.
Nelson, H. E., & Warrington, E. K. (1980). An investigation of
memory functions in dyslexic children. British Journal of Psychol-
ogy, 71, 487–503.
Plaza, M. (2001). The interaction between phonological processing,
syntactic awareness and reading: a longitudinal study from
Kindergarten to Grade 1. First Language, 21, 03–24.
Plaza, M., & Cohen, H. (2003). The interaction between phonological
processing, syntactic sensitivity and naming-speed in the reading
and spelling performance of first-grade children. Brain and Cogni-
tion, 53, 287–292.
Plaza, M., & Cohen, H. (2004). Predictive influence of phonological
processing, morphological/syntactic skills and naming-speed on
spelling performance. A longitudinal study from Grade 1 to Grade
2. Brain and Cognition, 55, 368–373.
Rapala, M. M., & Brady, S. (1990). Reading ability and short-term
memory. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2,
1–25.
Slaghuis, W. L., Lovegrove, W. J., & Davidson, J. A. (1993). Visual
and language processing deficits are concurrent in dyslexia. Cortex,
29, 601–615.
Stein, J. F., Talcott, J., & Walsh, V. (2000). Controversy about the
visual magnocellular deficit in developmental dyslexia. Trends in
Cognitive Neuroscience, 4, 209–211.
Tallal, P. (1980). Auditory temporal perception, phonics, and
reading disabilities in children. Brain and Language, 9, 182–
198.
Tallal, P., Miller, S., & Fitch, R. H. (1993). Neurobiological basis of
speech: A case of the preeminence of temporal processing. In P.
Tallal, A.M. Galaburda, R.R. Llinas, & C. Von Eurler (Eds.),
Temporal information processing in the nervous system. Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences (Vol. 682, pp. 27–47). New York:
New York Academy of Sciences.
Valdois, S., Bosse, M.-L., Ans, B., Carbonnel, S., Zorman, M., David,
D., et al. (2003). Phonological and visual processing deficits can
dissociate in developmental dyslexia: Evidence from two case
studies. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16,
541–572.
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Spearing, D. (1995). Semantic and
phonologic coding in poor and normal readers. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 59, 76–123.
Vellutino, F. R., Steger, J. A., Harding, C. J., & Phillips, F. (1975).
Verbal vs non-verbal paired-associate learning in poor and normal
readers. Neuropsychologia, 13, 75–82.
Vellutino, F. R., Steger, J. A., & Pruzek, R. M. (1973). Inter- vs intra-
sensory deficits in paired associate learning in poor and normal
readers. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 5, 111–
123.
Windfuhr, K. L., & Snowling, M. J. (2001). The relationship between
paired associate learning and phonological skills in normally
developing readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 80,
160–173.
Wagner, R., & Torgesen, J. (1993). The nature of phonological
processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills.
Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192–212.
Wagner, R., Torgesen, J., & Rashotte, C. (1994). Development of
reading-related phonological processing abilities: New evidence of
bidirectional causality from a latent variable longitudinal study.
Developmental Psychology, 30, 73–87.
Watson, B. U., & Miller, T. K. (1993). Auditory perception,
phonological processing and reading ability/disability. Journal of
Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 850–863.
Wolf, M., Bowers, P., & Biddle, K. (2000). Naming-speed processes,
timing and reading: a conceptual review. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 33, 387–407.
Wolf, M., Goldberg OÕRourke, A., Gidney, C., Lovett, M., Cirino, P.,
& Morris, R. (2002). The second deficit: an investigation of the
independence of phonological and naming-speed deficits in devel-
opmental dyslexia. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 15, 43–72.
Wolff, P., Michel, G., Drake, C., & Ovrut, M. (1990). Rate and timing
precision of motor coordination in developmental dyslexia. Devel-
opmental Psychology, 23, 349–359.