Reading and the Neurocognitive Bases of Statistical Learning1.

The processes underlying word reading are shaped by statistical properties of the writing system. According to some theoretical perspectives (e.g. Harm & Seidenberg, 2004) reading acquisition should be understood as an exercise in statistical learning. Statistical learning (SL) involves the extraction of organizing principles from a set of inputs. Several lines of research provide convergent evidence supporting the connection between SL and reading acquisition (e.g., Arciuli & Simpson, 2012; Frost et al., 2014; Bogaerts et al., 2015). An obstacle to fully appreciating the theoretical and educational implications of these findings is that SL is itself not well understood. In this paper, we review the current literature on SL with a particular focus on organizing this literature by grounding it in theories of learning and memory more generally. This approach can clarify the nature of SL and provide a framework for understanding its role in reading, reading acquisition, and reading disorders.

Development and Prediction of Context-Dependent Vowel Pronunciation in Elementary Readers.

As children learn to read they become sensitive to context-dependent vowel pronunciations in words, considered a form of statistical learning. The work of Treiman and colleagues demonstrated that readers' vowel pronunciations depend on the consonantal context in which the vowel occurs and reading experience. We examined child- and nonword-factors associated with children's assignment of more vs. less frequent grapheme-phoneme correspondences (GPC) to vowel pronunciations as a function of rime coda in monosyllabic nonwords. Students (N=96) in grades 2-5 read nonwords in which more vs. less frequent vowel GPCs were wholly supported or partially favored by the rime unit. Two explanatory item-response models were developed using alternative nonword scoring procedures. Use of less frequent vowel GPCs was predicted by set for variability, word reading, and rime support for the context-dependent vowel pronunciation. We interpret the results within a developmental word reading model in which initially incomplete and oversimplified GPC representations become more context-dependent with reading experience.

The role of test-retest reliability in measuring individual and group differences in executive functioning.

BACKGROUND: Studies testing for individual or group differences in executive functioning can be compromised by unknown test-retest reliability. NEW METHOD: Test-retest reliabilities across an interval of about one week were obtained from performance in the antisaccade, flanker, Simon, and color-shape switching tasks. There is a general trade-off between the greater reliability of single mean RT measures, and the greater process purity of measures based on contrasts between mean RTs in two conditions. The individual differences in RT model recently developed by Miller and Ulrich was used to evaluate the trade-off. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability was statistically significant for 11 of the 12 measures, but was of moderate size, at best, for the difference scores. The test-retest reliabilities for the Simon and flanker interference scores were lower than those for switching costs. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS: Standard practice evaluates the reliability of executive-functioning measures using split-half methods based on data obtained in a single day. Our test-retest measures of reliability are lower, especially for difference scores. These reliability measures must also take into account possible day effects that classical test theory assumes do not occur. CONCLUSIONS: Measures based on single mean RTs tend to have acceptable levels of reliability and convergent validity, but are "impure" measures of specific executive functions. The individual differences in RT model shows that the impurity problem is worse than typically assumed. However, the "purer" measures based on difference scores have low convergent validity that is partly caused by deficiencies in test-retest reliability.

Bilingual advantages in executive functioning either do not exist or are restricted to very specific and undetermined circumstances.

The hypothesis that managing two languages enhances general executive functioning is examined. More than 80% of the tests for bilingual advantages conducted after 2011 yield null results and those resulting in significant bilingual advantages tend to have small sample sizes. Some published studies reporting significant bilingual advantages arguably produce no group differences if more appropriate tests of the critical interaction or more appropriate baselines are used. Some positive findings are likely to have been caused by failures to match on demographic factors and others have yielded significant differences only with a questionable use of the analysis-of-covariance to "control" for these factors. Although direct replications are under-utilized, when they are, the results of seminal studies cannot be reproduced. Furthermore, most studies testing for bilingual advantages use measures and tasks that do not have demonstrated convergent validity and any significant differences in performance may reflect task-specific mechanism and not domain-free executive functions (EF) abilities. Brain imaging studies have made only a modest contribution to evaluating the bilingual-advantage hypothesis, principally because the neural differences do not align with the behavioral differences and also because the neural measures are often ambiguous with respect to whether greater magnitudes should cause increases or decreases in performance. The cumulative effect of confirmation biases and common research practices has either created a belief in a phenomenon that does not exist or has inflated the frequency and effect size of a genuine phenomenon that is likely to emerge only infrequently and in restricted and undetermined circumstances.

Bilingual advantages in executive functioning: problems in convergent validity, discriminant validity, and the identification of the theoretical constructs.

A sample of 58 bilingual and 62 monolingual university students completed four tasks commonly used to test for bilingual advantages in executive functioning (EF): antisaccade, attentional network test, Simon, and color-shape switching. Across the four tasks, 13 different indices were derived that are assumed to reflect individual differences in inhibitory control, monitoring, or switching. The effects of bilingualism on the 13 measures were explored by directly comparing the means of the two language groups and through regression analyses using a continuous measure of bilingualism and multiple demographic characteristics as predictors. Across the 13 different measures and two types of data analysis there were very few significant results and those that did occur supported a monolingual advantage. An equally important goal was to assess the convergent validity through cross-task correlations of indices assume to measure the same component of executive functioning. Most of the correlations using difference-score measures were non-significant and many near zero. Although modestly higher levels of convergent validity are sometimes reported, a review of the existing literature suggests that bilingual advantages (or disadvantages) may reflect task-specific differences that are unlikely to generalize to important general differences in EF. Finally, as cautioned by Salthouse, assumed measures of executive functioning may also be threatened by a lack of discriminant validity that separates individual or group differences in EF from those in general fluid intelligence or simple processing speed.