Читать книгу The Science of Reading - Группа авторов - Страница 41

The dual‐route theory is an account of reading aloud. The two routes refer to procedures thought to be necessary and sufficient for generating pronunciations from print. The procedures involve orthography and phonology but not semantics, which is only used in reading aloud as a compensatory strategy in acquired dyslexia (Coltheart, 2006). Pritchard et al. (2018) also incorporated semantics in their account of learning to read.

Seidenberg and McClelland (1989) introduced a general theoretical framework for computing lexical codes (orthography, phonology, semantics). It is called the “triangle” model for brevity, but also includes the contexts in which words occur. Ideally a model that processes words would be embedded in one that processes sequences of words in meaningful texts. Their implemented model was a network that computed pronunciations from print, using a procedure that applied to all types of letter strings. In later work Plaut et al. (1996) addressed the role of semantics in reading aloud, and the “division of labor” between components of the triangle (see also Seidenberg, 1992). Seidenberg and McClelland (1989) assessed whether the trained model could reproduce several well‐established findings concerning properties of words that affect skilled performance and reading acquisition. The methodology involved testing the model on the same words used in an experiment and observing whether the same pattern of results was obtained. This approach was subsequently adopted by Coltheart et al. (2001). Some of the phenomena (e.g., regularity effects) are predicted by both approaches; others (e.g., consistency effects) are particularly important because the theories make different predictions about them.

Here, we focus on modeling results that illustrate four types of problems with DRC models:

 Simulations of “benchmark” studies that were said to reproduce an effect (e.g., frequency X regularity interaction) deviated from the behavioral findings in important ways.

 The models consistently missimulated the results of other studies of the same phenomena but these were not reported, creating a modeling version of a “file‐drawer problem” (Simmons et al., 2011).

 The models exhibited other anomalous behaviors that were not discussed.

 The models did not address prominent phenomena that contradict the approach.