READINGAND AUDITORY-VISUAL EQUIVALENCES MURRAY SIDMAN Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts A retarded boy, unable to read printed words orally or with comprehension, could match spoken words to pictures and could name pictures. After being taught to match spoken to printed words, he was then capable of reading comprehension (matching the printed words to pictures) and oral reading (naming the printed words aloud). Reading may be regarded broadly as a type of stimulus-response relation in which the controlling stimuli are visual words-written or printed text. Within this general type of stimulus-response relation, several subcategories may be identified. One is oral reading. A simple example: If we show a child the word, bay, and he says boy, he indicates that he can read the word orally. Oral reading may or may not involve comprehension; for example, one can read words in a foreign language aloud without understanding them. Oral reading may, in fact, be more appropriately called "oral naming of words." As such, it may be no different than the oral naming of objects, or the pictures of objects. A common observation, however, is that children generally learn to name objects or pictures aloud before they learn to name the corresponding printed words. To demonstrate reading comprehension, we require a different kind of stimulus-response relation. A simple example: If we show a child the printed word, bay, and he is then able to select a picture of a boy out of several other pictures, we say that he understands the word. One simple kind of reading comprehension, then, may be demonstrated by the child's accurate matching of printed words to pictures. Defined this way, reading comprehension is a purely visual task. Note that one may be capable of this kind of reading comprehension without being able to read the words orally. A third stimulus-response relation, rarely discussed explicitly, might be termed, auditory-receptive reading. For example, we say the word "bay," to a child, and he is then to select the word boy out of several other printed words. This differers from oral reading in that the word is spoken to, and not by, the child. Nevertheless, discussions of the role of auditory-visual equivalences in reading often confuse oral reading and auditory-receptive reading under some such common heading as word recognition. Like oral reading, auditory-receptive reading may or may not involve comprehension, either of the auditory (spoken) or the visual (printed) word. As the "look-say" method of teaching reading) that are based on them. A large group of retarded children and dyslexic children. A second indication that auditory-visual equivalences and reading are closely linked comes from correlational studies by Birch and his coworkers (Birch and Belmont. the question of whether auditory-visual learning is indeed a necessary or even a suflqeient prerequisite for the development of oral reading or reading comprehension seems not to have been studied experimentally. and he is then to select the picture of a boy out of several other pictures. 1964. Similarly. or pictures of objects. who takes as his starting point the observations. but to read words orally. 1962. The experiment to be described now will demonstrate that certain learned auditoryvisual equivalences are indeed sufficient prerequisites for the emergence of 6 Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 14 5-13 1971 . Geschwind has proposed that developmental dyslexia may be correlated with the slow maturation of the angular gyrus bilaterally. simple auditory comprehension can be tested by matching auditory words to visual pictures: We say the word boy. 1968). Kahn and Birch. They also learn not just to name pictures. before they learn to name the printed or written words that correspond to those objects. he has suggested that the evolution of the angular gyrus region. Several lines of converging evidence and theory have led many writers to postulate that reading comprehension. that cross-modal equivalences and language are closely linked. auditory comprehension of words usually preceds visual comprehension. 1962). As a consequence. Most children break through the "sound barrier" in the first or second grade. (2) Children usually name objects. a visual task. and in spite of the educational practices (e. or perhaps even with its failure to develop. actually make language possible. and learn to understand not just words they hear. particularly auditoryvisual. Furthermore. First. Geschwind.g. He has proposed that cross-modal equivalences. It is likely that this transfer marks a critical point in the development of behavior and the central nervous system. but words they see. there are certain common observations of normal developmental sequences: ( 1 ) Children normally understand words they hear before they learn to read with comprehension. evolves from the previous learning of auditory-visual equivalences (Birch. In spite of these empirical and theoretical considerations. A third set of considerations comes from the neuroanatomical theories of Geschwind (1965). Using a test of auditory-visual integration (matching sound patterns to visual patterns).noted before. to a child. makes that region the prime candidate as the central-nervous-system site for the mediation of crossmodal equivalences. like those noted above and others. strategically located at the junction of auditory. they found positive correlations between scores on this test and scores on standard reading achievement tests. the angular gyrus is held to be critical for language in general and for reading in particular. simple visual comprehension can be tested by a visual word-picture matching task. 1965. Wepman. have not made the transfer from auditory comprehension and picture naming to visual reading comprehension and oral reading. and somesthetic association cortexes. however. visual.. object naming precedes word naming (oral reading). in press. colors. the major finding is sufficiently provocative. cat. and number names that were spoken aloud to him. ear. the correct one. Preliminary tests evaluated the subject's proficiency at simple comprehension and naming tasks. Visual stimuli Were projected from the rear onto the windows (Rosenberger et al. ho~. zoo. Each test had 20 trials. corresponded to the sample. color names. bug. In matching tests.reading comprehension. arranged in a 3 • 3 matrix. repeated at 2-second intervals. each 2 inches square. saw. pig. or the printed (lower case) or spoken names of the pictures were: axe. During the past two years. The subject selected and pressed one of the choice windows. were dictated from tapes over a speaker (Figure 1. 1968). always visual. even without explicitly teaching reading comprehension. hen. Although the data raise a number of unanswered questions. but not the corresponding printed words. Apparatus and Procedures The subject sat before a panel of 9 translucent windows. the subject pressed the center window to bring choice stimuli. the other seven choices did not. auditory word samples. taken from a list of 20 pictures. final SIDMAN: Reading and Auditory-Visual Equivalences 7 . On each trial. pie. and printed numbers to picture names.. and 1. Schematic examples of the displays are in the second column of Figure 1. but little if any reading comprehension or oral reading. Reward procedures were the same as in the matching tests. METHOD Subiect The subject of the experiment was an institutionalized 17-year-old boy. bee. the subject had simply to name the sample picture or word aloud. bed. Each trial began by presentation of a sample stimulus. Also. No rewards followed incorrect choices. he had extensive experience with the apparatus and matching-to-sample procedures described below. cow. boy. he could name the pictures aloud. But he was unable to do the matching correctly when the names were presented to him visually rather than spoken. The following findings are a relevant background for the present experiment: He was able to match pictures. then. onto the outer windows of the matrix. man. car. In oral naming tests. he was taught to match spoken to printed words. The sample and choice stimuli. left column). and relevant to both theory and teaching practice. Visual word or picture samples appeared on the center window of the matrix. dog. he showed good auditory comprehension and picture naming. microcephalic and severely retarded. hat. His correct choices were rewarded by chimes ringing and delivery of a candy and a penny. The stimuli disappeared after each choice. Therefore.5 seconds later a new sample began the next trial. He could not write. box. to warrant this report in advance of more extended studies. hut. one choice. The three columns of bars represent scores in each depicted test during the three phases of the experiment. m nn * ~C AT m 60b_y 40- (spoken subject) 2oO. 0 <) . 8 1ournal of Speech and Hearing Research 14 5-13 1971 . Letters identi~ the six auditory-visual word matching sets (uppermost row). 10080.. 0 . .~ ~& NM -I I Iq.s i 100! ~' C A T " (spoken to subject) *O1~ qr qr .mr omr hol ~) t 0 0 *. 0 t'q~p subject) A 9 .80v) I ' -a ~ hut .SAMPLE (AUDITORY OR V I S U A L ) RESPONSE ( N A M E OR MATC H) BASELINE CONTROL TESTS 10080TEACHING POSTTEACHING TESTS oar ~CAT" ear key B (spoken t_. In the two left columns are examples of the sample stimuli and responses that comprised each type of test..t eow ~ 6oi40200-' 100~ hod . I . Choice stimuli and correct window position in the matching tests varied from trial to trial. 0 . k~ t~ t ~ l ~ "CAT" eat (spoken by b040200.o dot bet kod eat eow 6040200.. Absenco of a bar means no test on the indicated date.. 0 t~ [ qt~ FIGUItE 1. 9 subject) 10080eat 6040- .. In four tests. picture naming and oral reading. Bars at the lower left show the subject's scores in tests that required him to match spoken word samples to picture choices. and that he could say the words aloud. The subject came to the experiment knowing the equivalence of spoken words to pictures (Equivalence I). these tests were: Matching picture samples to printed word choices. The possibility that the subject could not distinguish the printed words from each other was ruled out by his score of 95% in matching printed word samples to printed word choices (not shown in Figure 1). Teaching Auditory-Receptive Reading Teaching the subject to match auditory to visual words was the critical experimental operation. The arrows connecting the center boxes to the right hand box represent the two naming performances. he scored from 60 to 95% correct. The three boxes at the left and center of Figure 2 represent the three types of stimuli. Also. and matching spoken word samples to printed word choices. He also scored 85% in naming the pictures (second row from bottom). The words in this test were the same 20 that comprised the other tests. and the auditory words from each other. administered from April 1967. Figure 2 will illustrate the logic of the experiment and will serve as a basis for later discussion.' Reading and Auditory-Visual Equivalences 9 . oral reading. matching printed word samples to picture choices (3 tests over 2 years). nor with the oral responses. SIDMAN. Continuing up the left column. Would teaching him auditory-visual (Equivalence II). spoken words to visual words. and the arrows represent stimulus equivalences as defined by the matching performance.tests evaluated the effects of this teaching on his reading comprehension and word naming. Baseline Control Tests The results of preliminary tests are in the left column of bar graphs in Figure 1. RESULTS Each row of bar graphs shows the subject's test scores on the task depicted at the left. and picture naming) show that the subject could already distinguish the pictures from each other. naming printed words. demonstrating a fair proficiency at this type of auditory comprehension. suffice to establish reading comprehension. In reading-all tests that involved printed words-the subject scored poorly. the two types of control tests at the bottom of Figure 1 (matching spoken words to pictures. His difficulties were neither with the discrimination of the stimuli used here. to July 1969. but were specifically with the stimulusresponse relations that operationally define simple reading comprehension. and auditory-receptive reading. I-IV. and VI. and testing on a new set con10 ]oumal of Speech and Hearing Research 14 5-13 1971 . the purely visual equivalence of printed words to pictures (Equivalences III and IV)? He also came to the experiment able to name the pictures (V). choices were printed words (Figure 1. given this ability. top row). Of the stimulus equivalences. . first bar). V and VI. the subject came to the experiment knowing I. if the child made one or more errors on a given trial. when his first choices on all three were correct. reviewed Set B to the same 100% criterion. he could do V. a fourth was added. Teaching differed from testing in several ways. The process of learning. Set A was used for the preliminary control test. when the subject chose a wrong printed word. sample stimuli were words spoken to the subject. and was tested on Set D. His low score on Set C (Figure 1. (2) Errors had different consequences. Then a third trial was added. and displayed a different combination of seven wrong words along with each correct word. the two being repeated until the subject's first choices on both were correct. the display remained unchanged until he pressed the correct window. would teaching him auditory-visual word matching suffice for oral reading (VI) to emerge? In the teaching procedure. This progressive enlargement of the set continued as the subject attained each criterion of mastery.VISUAL PICTURES I I I AUDITORY WOR D S ORAL NAMING 1 III llV I I I I I J i/ o (SPOKEN TO SUBJECT) # I I /V I I I (SPOKEN B. (1) A correction procedure was used. the chimes rang when he finally pressed the correct window. center section. Of the naming tasks. After being taught equivalence II.Y ii\ "~[ SUBJECT) . IV. suggested that his learning of Set B had been specific to the particular sequence of correct window positions and to the particular wrong words displayed along with each correct word. VISUAL WORDS FZCURE2. he could then do III. until his first choices were correct on the full set of twenty trials. (3) Each phase of the teaching procedure started with only two trials (sample-choice combinations). but he did not receive candy or a penny. reviewing. Then the subject was taught Set B until he scored 100%. (4) Six versions or sets of auditoryvisual word matching materials were used. Each set presented the same 20 sample words in different trial sequences. and was tested on Set C. Schematic summary of the experiment. The subject then learned Set C. rather than a cross-modal linkage? That deaf children learn to read suggests an a~rmative answer. A simple connectionistic interpretation of the emergence of reading comprehension might be that the visual words and pictures became equivalent to each other (III. sufficed for the emergency of purely visual reading comprehension and oral reading.) Finally. The subject maintained his good performances on the first auditory-visual word matching set he had learned (upper right). It is not clear from this experiment. to assume only a single mechanism for reading comprehension. that visual nonsense syllables were substituted for the auditory words. The emergence of visual-word naming. however. Scores are in the right column of Figure 1. Suppose. and that arbitrary equivalences between these visual symbols and the words and pictures were taught to the subject. demonstrated his new proficiency at the task. Having learned to match spoken word samples to printed word choices. Given the subject's initial ability to match spoken words to pictures. even with a common intramodal. particularly with respect to the integrating functions of the angular gyrus region. in matching spoken words to pictures. whether equivalences I and II need be cross-modal. The change from 20 to 8 0 ~ correct on Set A. There is no need. and to name the pictures. II). he was then able. Post-Teaching Tests After the teaching. since the equivalence of visual words to picSIDMAN': Reading and Auditory-Visual Equivalences 11 . had become equivalent to the same auditory words (I. Would the words and pictures then emerge as equivalent to each other. (The teaching process itself is not shown. to match picture samples to the printed word choices. Of major interest are the subject's reading comprehension and oral reading tests (visual word-picture and picture-word matching. IV) because each. which he had not seen since the preliminary test. This would be entirely consistent with the theoretical suppositions of Geschwind (1965). one month after the preliminary test. without additional teaching. only the test scores on each new set. however. word naming). teaching him the second auditory-visual equivalence. and the center section of Figure 1 shows the gradual improvement on each new test. or oral reading (VI)I complicates the simple connectionist view. and in picture naming (lower right). to match printed word samples to picture choices and to name printed words. spoken to printed words. DISCUSSION The findings will be discussed with reference to Figure 2. for example. independently. all comprehension and oral naming tests were administered once more. These improved greatly. the subject was retested on Set A.tinued through Set F. Independently of comprehension. and James Sidman for technical assistance. Neurology Service. VI) rather than by auditory words. The subject did not name the words or pictures aloud during the reading comprehension tests. it did not do so through the auditory channel. Massachusetts General Hospital. This. The auditory stimuli Guess used were singular and plural object names. of the subject's ability to read orally in mediating the transfer from the cross-modal to the purely visual equivalences.tures may have been mediated by naming (V. it may be necessary for the child already to have the words in his own speech repertoire. the technique provides a rapid method for determining whether a child who has not yet made the transfer from the auditory to the visual comprehension of words is actually incapable of passing through this apparently critical developmental stage. and this does require that a teacher participate actively. Kennedy. however. in a child capable of speech. analogous to our Equivalence I. The identification of these sufficient prerequisites for reading comprehension suggests a most important practical consequence. the experiment has demonstrated that matching auditory words to pictures and to printed words are sufficient prerequisites for the emergence of both types of stimulus-response relation.. In addition to the differences in stimulus materials and responses (simple nouns versus singular and plural nouns). I thank Osborne Cresson. then. that even if the emergence of word naming permitted reading comprehension to develop. Furthermore. a likely reason for the discrepancy between Guess' experiment and the present experiment is that our subject was taught Equivalence II and tested on Task VI (word naming) after he had demonstrated his ability to do Task V (picture naming). Martha Wilson. Both auditory-visual equivalences (I. analogous to our oral naming Task V. Automated programs to teach reading comprehension via purely receptive auditory-visual training (Equivalences I and II) would permit a far larger number of children to be reached than is now possible. It should be emphasized. and oral reading. whatever proves to be the role. and by the Joseph P. Reading comprehension is usually taught by way of oral naming. too.. MemorialLaboratories. after the child has learned auditory-visual word matching. the only auditory stimuli were the words spoken to him in previous tests and teaching sessions. is testable. and he taught the children to match these spoken names to singular and plural objects. Furthermore. Guess (1969) has shown that receptive language training need not facilitate the learning of productive speech. if any. reading comprehension. If receptive training is to facilitate oral speech. II) can be taught completely without the intervention of a teacher. one may ask whether oral reading (VI) will always emerge. 12 Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 14 5-13 1971 . ACKNOWLEDGMENT This research was supported by Grant NS 03535 from the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke. to use the correct singular and plural forms in naming the objects. The children were unable. Jr. REFERENCES BIaCH. Behav.. Auditory-visual integration.. ROSENnEnCEa. H. Inter.. J. Ch.. Arch. 1. 27. Boston: Little. 459-468 (1968).). Received January 2.. Motor Skills. BmCH. and BELMONT. GESCHWIND. D. J. intelligence. MOHR. KAHN.). 549-562 (1968). 2. 20. Brown (in press). WEPMAN. Dyslexia and and the maturation of visual function. GESCHWXND. Appl. GuEss. M. G. STODDAP.. G. Auditory-visual integration in normal and retarded readers. Orthopsychiat. D. 88.. 237-293 (1965).. Reading Disability. L.. Percept. H. 12 in J.). and SIDMAN. SIDMAN: Reading and Auditory-Visual Equivalences 13 . B. 10 in J. H. Analysis. 1. A functional analysis of receptive language and productive speech: Acquisition of the plural morpheme. 18. 1970. Wilkins (Ed. BllaCH. Development of auditory-visual integration and reading achievement. T. Brain. Motor Skills. and reading ability in school children.. P. Neurol. Percept.. H. W... G. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins (1962). G. Amer. N. and BELMONT. Textbook of Medicine. N. 34. Disconnexion syndromes in animals and man: Part I. In R.and intramodality matching deficits in a dysphasic youth. Money (Ed. 295-305 (1965).. Ch. 852-861 (1964). D. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins (1962). Money (Ed. Aphasias and related disturbances. 55-64 (1969). P. Dyslexia: Its relationship to language acquisition and concept formation. Reading Disability.. L. and BmCH.M. L.. 14.org/cgi/content/abstract/14/1/5#otherarticles This information is current as of November 29. 2012 This article.asha.Reading and Auditory-Visual Equivalences Murray Sidman J Speech Hear Res 1971.asha.org/cgi/content/abstract/14/1/5 .5-13 This article has been cited by 1 HighWire-hosted article(s) which you can access for free at: http://jslhr. is located on the World Wide Web at: http://jslhr. along with updated information and services.