ABSTRACT
AIMS: To develop standardised texts for assessing reading speed during repeated measurements and across languages for normal subjects and low vision patients. METHODS: 10 texts were designed by linguistic experts in English, Finnish, French, and German. The texts were at the level of a sixth grade reading material (reading ages 10-12 years) and were matched for length (830 (plus or minus 2) characters) and syntactic complexity, according to the syntactic prediction locality theory of Gibson. 100 normally sighted native speaking volunteers aged 18-35 years (25 per language) read each text aloud in randomised order. The newly designed text battery was then applied to test the reading performance of 100 normally sighted native speaking volunteers aged 60-85 years (25 per language). RESULTS: Reading speed was not significantly different with at least seven texts in all four languages. The maximum reading speed difference between texts, in the same language was 6.8% (Finnish). Average reading speeds (SD) in characters per minute are, for the young observer group: English 1234 (147), Finnish 1263 (142), French 1214 (152), German 1126 (105). The group of older readers showed statistically significant lower average reading speeds: English 951 (97), Finnish 1014 (179), French 1131 (160), German 934 (117). CONCLUSION: The authors have developed a set of standardised, homogeneous, and comparable texts in four European languages (English, Finnish, French, German). These texts will be a valuable tool for measuring reading speed in international studies in the field of reading and low vision research.
Subject(s)
Language , Reading , Vision, Low/rehabilitation , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Aging/physiology , Cross-Cultural Comparison , England , Finland , France , Germany , Humans , Middle Aged , Psychophysics , Reference Values , Semantics , Vision Tests/methods , Vision Tests/standardsABSTRACT
In the present study we made use of Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) to examine raising and subject control constructions in German. Our most salient result is that the ERPs elicited at the empty subject position of a raising construction are clearly different from those elicited at the corresponding position of an otherwise identical subject control construction, the former producing a stronger P600. We argue that this result provides an electrophysiological correlate of the theoretical distinction between NP trace and PRO.
