Automatized Naming And Working Memory Paper

Reading Effecting Automatized Naming (RAN) and Working Memory Throughout childhood, children learn different activities which can impact their physical and cognitive development. Children performs all kind of different activities regardless of cultural background. In every culture, children are exposed to variety of different aspects of daily life works and activities. All of these basic everyday activities can impact children’s cognitive development. Most often, in early childhood, children are exposed to reading and storytelling. Every cultural has their own way of teaching children how to read and tell them stories about their cultural, rituals, and basic information about their ancestors. Reading has a great impact on the cognitive development

The serial RAN was where the participants were asked to name recurring digits and objects which were arranged semi-randomly in five rows of 10 as quickly as possible. The reading fluency measure had two task which included both oral reading fluency and silent reading fluency. The oral reading fluency task was assessed with the Word Reading Efficiency and Phonemic Decoding Efficiency and in this task, the participants were asked to read, as quick as possible, a list of 104 words. The silent reading fluency task was assessed with the Wordchains in which the participants “were asked to scan words presented as a continuous line of print without inter-word spaces (e.g., boy- gomeet) and to identify the words by drawing a line to indicate where the spaces should be (e.g., boy/ go/meet)” (Georgiou, Parrila, Cui, & Papadopoulos, 2012, p. 221). For all of the measures, children were individually assessed with the researcher during their school hours with three sessions, each lasting for 25 minutes. The results suggest that RAN and reading are related to one other because both are serial of processing. The serial RAN was only significantly predicted reading fluency, however, both RAN cancellation and RAN yes/no requires serial processing but were not strongly correlated with reading compare to the standard serial RAN task. Furthermore, RAN is related

There were 62 boys (53 %) and 55 girls aged between 9 years and 9 months and 12 years and 1 month (M = 11.1 years, SD = .43). The sample included 14 children with dyslexia, 12 children with ADHD, 2 children with Asperger Syndrome, and one child with comorbid disorders including ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia. The study used different tasks and materials which includes reading comprehension, non-verbal cognitive ability, decoding, vocabulary, phonological storage, semantic storage, phonological working memory, and semantic working memory. Only two of the tasks, non-verbal cognitive ability and reading comprehension, were administered in the classroom, and all other tasks were administered individually and divided over two sessions. The results showed that for reading comprehension, sematic storage was a better predictor compared to the phonological storage, “indicating that the degree to which semantic information is tapped by storage tasks influences the extent to which these tasks explain variation in reading comprehension” (Nouwens, Groen, & Verhoeven, 2016). Also, it showed that the individual variance in reading comprehension was found in the semantic working memory task than in all other memory measures. Overall, this study suggests that both sematic storage and processing components are important in explaining individual variation in children’s reading