This document summarizes the cognitive processes involved in reading aloud versus silent reading. It discusses that reading involves interconnected cognitive processes that take years to develop and allow our eyes to perceive words ahead in a text. It then describes a computational model of reading proposed by Rumelhart and McClelland involving feature, letter, and word levels that interact via excitation and inhibition. The model was later developed to account for priming effects by introducing synaptic strengthening. Finally, the document outlines three possible cognitive routes from visual word analysis to speech production when reading aloud.

1. Reading involves a series of interlinked cognitive processes. These processes are not
inbuilt for reading. They cannot be as reading is only a very recent innovation in the
course of human history, and thus we could not have evolved such a specific process in
such a short space of time. Reading out loud is a more complex process the just normal,
silent, reading. However, it is not a distinct process. Instead it involves all the same
processes as reading sliently, then this processing leads onto further stages of processing
which are more speech-related.
§
Perceptual span
The ability to read§ is one that takes many years from childhood§ to develop into a skill
that becomes really quite automatic, requiring little conscious effort to perform. There are
many processes going on in the brain§, but first, the words§ themselves need to be
detected visually. When we read oureyes§ make very many short and quick movements
across the text, called saccades§. Our eyes do not just fixate on the features of the text§,
instead, we make use of parafoveal vision§. This could be seen as “reading ahead”.
Studies, using equipment to track eye movements, have shown that we typically are
looking about two or three words ahead when reading out loud. So we look over a span of
text rather than at each word, or even letter, at a time. This is called “perceptual span§”.
The size of this span varies depending on the text being read. If the font§ is bigger for
instance, the perceptual span will be physically bigger on the retina§, however, there is
some constancy of size when the number of letters or words in contains is considered.
There are three types of perceptual span. Total perceptual span encompasses the whole
area over which information is recognised. Letter§identification span is the area from
which letters are identified, whereas word identification span is the area from which
words can be identified. Perceptual spans have a bias to the right, i.e., ahead of what is
being read. Pollatsek et al. showed that readers of Hebrew§, which is read from right to
left, have a bias to the left in their perceptual span.
Neurophysiological basis of reading
Knowledge of basic neurophysiology§ can tell us what areas must be involved in reading
out loud. Information is received at the retina, transmitted via the optic nerve§ and the
lateral geniculate nucleus§, to the primary visual cortex§. Processing occurs here and
information is then relayed toWernicke’s areas§ and Broca’s areas§, where more
information processing occurs. Finally, information is relayed to motor cortex§ associated
with producing speech§ sounds. But this does not really tell us much. All I said was
“processing” occurs in these areas, but knowledge of what these areas might do, does not
tell us how they do it. The study of neurophysiology alone does not allow us to infer
mechanisms of processing with any degree of certainty. The best course of action is to
observe people§, both those who can read normally and those with reading disorders, and
try and come up with a computational model§ based on these observations, and also
taking into account what we know neuronal structures§ can do.
A model of reading
One of the first, and most significant, computational models is that created by Rumelhart
and McClelland (1981§). Theirs is an interactive activation model§ based on three levels
of processing following from visual input; the feature level (which detects the individual
features of letters), the letter level (which collates input from the feature level to detect
letters), and finally, the word level (which takes the outputs of the letter level to detect
words). As it stands, this is just a hierarchical§ model. To be an interactive activation
model the levels need to loop back. The connections between the levels are both
excitatory§ and inhibitory§. There are also inhibitory loops leading back within the

2. levels. For instance, the input of a particular letter feature, say, a vertical bar, excites the
corresponding cells in the feature level. These cells then act to inhibit the cells which do
not correspond to that feature. There are then excitatory outputs connecting to nodes§ of
cells§ in the letter level which correspond to letters which have the feature of a vertical
bar (e.g, "T", "H", "L", etc.). There are also inhibitory connections that serve to inhibit
any nodes which correspond to letters which do not have the feature of a vertical bar
(e.g., "A", "O", "C", etc.). The excited letter nodes then inhibit other nodes in the same
level. The letter nodes that are excited then provide excitatory input to nodes in the word
level which correspond to words which have that particular letter in a certain position.
Again, inhibition is also fed into the word level for words that do not meet these
requirements.
Criticism of the Rumelhart and McClelland model
Rumelhart and McCelland’s model has faced criticism§ due to the fact that it is only
designed to deal with four letter words§, but there is no real reason why its could not be
expanded to deal with more. Of course millions§ of connections would be required to
encompass the lexicon§ of theaverage§ adult§, but this is not neuronally impossible§.
Another criticism is that the model does not predict the observed phenomenon of
priming§. Priming is where a mask§ (something to block a visual stimulus) is presented,
followed by the display of a word for so short a period that it is not consciously
recognised by a test subject§. Immediately after this, another word, the target§ word, is
displayed for a slightly longer period of time so that it is consciously detected. After that,
another mask is displayed so that a subject has to report the word from memory§, and
does not get any longer to recognise it. Findings have shown that when a subject is
presented with two different words, the frequency of correct reports is significantly less
then when both those words were the same. By the same, I mean that they are the same
word, except the first is in lower case§letters while the second is in upper case§ letters so
that there is a difference in the visual presentation. The frequency of correct reports is
also higher if any letter in the prime word is identical and in the same position in the
target word, and also, if the prime word is semantically§ related (such as “sharp” and
“point”).
Development of the Rumelhart and McClelland model
The interactive activation model has no capacity for this sort of behaviour as it stands.
However, if the idea of strengthening of connections was introduced it might. A theory§
behind the priming effect§ is based on the same principle as conditional learning§,
namely, that synaptic connections§ are strengthened in accordance with simultaneously
occurring inputs (this is known as "Hebbian learning§"). This causes long term
potentiation§ in the cells relevant to recognising a priming word and so there is still some
residual activity when the target word is presented, thus it requires less activity to
reactivate the specific node for a word. This effect is also seen when lists of words are
presented for a test subject to read out loud, and some words are repeated. Those words
that have previously been presented have a shorter reaction time§ to being read out than
before. There also seems to be evidence of a more long term effect to this. It has been
found that people will more quickly recognise familiar words (such as “chair”, and
“apple”) than unfamiliar words (such as “microscope”, and “sasquatch”), thus implying
some kind of increased synapse§ strength over the period of years rather than seconds§ or
minutes§.
Cognitive routes in reading
There appears to be three possible routes of processing from reading words to saying
them out loud, all three starting with a visual analysis§system, which could be the
interactive activation model mentioned above. Route one involves phoneme§-grapheme§
conversion§, which deals with simply converting spellings§ into sounds§, then converts
them into speech. This is how many children learn to read, and also how an adult reader

3. would read out unknown words. Routes two and three both involve the straight
recognition of familiar words. Route two however goes on from there to employ a
semantic system to associate the word with a meaning§, which is involves auditory
association cortex§ and then associations in motor cortex to produce speech. The third
route skips the semantic recognition and goes straight to auditory and motor associations.
The processing areas involved in the articulation of read words
To read out loud, the visual input needs to be processed by areas such as Wernicke§’s
area, the primary areas for the comprehension of language. The output of this area leads
to Broca§’s area, which coordinates neurons§ in the motor cortex to produce speech.
Summary
It obviously takes more processing to read out loud than it does to read silently. There are
many more additional processes, rather than there necessarily being significant changes
to the reading processes themselves. Certainly, experiments show that the rate of words
read per minute is greater when reading is silent than when it is out loud.
§
Based on the lectures of Prof. Peter McLeod, Department of Experimental Psychology,
University of Oxford§.