| Context |
Then, the 20 items randomly assigned to Set A were presented for oral reading, with phonemic cuing or modelling as needed until the correct response was elicited. Each subsequent session began with an oral naming probe (no feedback), before presenting trained items in random order for cued oral reading. When H.W. reached 100% accuracy on Set A, Set B was treated in the same manner. Figure 20.4 shows that the cued oral reading treatment was associated with improved oral naming when it was applied to each set in turn. There was no generalisation of improvement to untrained words, indicating that oral reading influenced access only to those phonological representations that were activated in treatment (perhaps by lowering the threshold of activation of these words.
|
