The effect of attention shifting on Chinese children's word reading in primary school.

Hui Zhou, Meiling Jiang
Author Information
  1. Hui Zhou: Center for Brain, Mind and Education, Shaoxing University, Shaoxing City, People's Republic of China. demom_bore@163.com. ORCID
  2. Meiling Jiang: School of Teacher Education, Shaoxing University, Shaoxing City, People's Republic of China.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study explored the effects of attention shifting on Chinese children's word reading.
OBJECTIVE: The sample consisted of 87 fourth-grade children from Shaoxing City, China.
METHODS: The students completed measures of the attention shifting task, reading accuracy test, reading fluency test, and rapid automatized naming test.
RESULTS: The results showed that reading fluency was significantly correlated with attention shifting scores, specifically with tag1 and tag6 (ps < 0.05). The reading accuracy score was also significantly correlated with tag6 (p < 0.05). According to the regression analysis of attention shifting on word reading, even when controlling for rapid automatic naming, attention shifting significantly affected word reading fluency at approximately 600 ms (p = .011). Attention shifting did not affect children's word reading accuracy.
SHORT CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that attention shifting is significantly associated with children's word reading. Educators should focus on developing children's attention shifting to improve their word reading ability.

Keywords

References

  1. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Feb 08;18(4): [PMID: 33567567]
  2. J Atten Disord. 2016 Aug;20(8):653-64 [PMID: 23475828]
  3. Schizophr Res Cogn. 2023 Jun 27;34:100289 [PMID: 37435364]
  4. Dev Psychol. 2022 Jun;58(6):1017-1034 [PMID: 35311314]
  5. Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Dec;5(12):1674-1685 [PMID: 34140658]
  6. J Exp Child Psychol. 2011 Jun;109(2):158-73 [PMID: 21349537]
  7. Cereb Cortex. 2023 Mar 10;33(6):2761-2773 [PMID: 35699600]
  8. Vision Res. 2008 Jun;48(13):1497-502 [PMID: 18466946]
  9. Neurosci Lett. 1999 Aug 27;271(3):202-4 [PMID: 10507704]
  10. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 May 19;18(10): [PMID: 34069642]
  11. PeerJ. 2015 Jan 22;3:e746 [PMID: 25649715]
  12. Cereb Cortex Commun. 2020 Mar 23;1(1):tgaa006 [PMID: 34296087]
  13. Cogn Process. 2023 Jun 20;: [PMID: 37338644]
  14. J Psychopharmacol. 2023 Jun;37(6):554-565 [PMID: 36988214]
  15. Front Psychol. 2016 Feb 02;7:44 [PMID: 26869953]
  16. J Educ Psychol. 2004 Mar 1;96(1):119-129 [PMID: 19777077]
  17. Vision Res. 2004;44(21):2521-35 [PMID: 15358087]
  18. J Psycholinguist Res. 2020 Feb;49(1):31-40 [PMID: 31440943]
  19. Sci Stud Read. 2014;18(5):325-346 [PMID: 36733663]
  20. Neuroimage. 2004 Dec;23(4):1235-45 [PMID: 15589089]
  21. Clin Neurophysiol. 2016 Sep;127(9):3165-3175 [PMID: 27476025]
  22. Br J Psychol. 2001 Feb;92 Part 1:53-78 [PMID: 11802865]
  23. Front Psychol. 2019 Nov 06;10:2450 [PMID: 31780982]
  24. Vision Res. 2019 Dec;165:152-161 [PMID: 31751900]
  25. Sci Rep. 2017 Jul 19;7(1):5863 [PMID: 28725022]
  26. Brain Lang. 2017 Oct;173:41-51 [PMID: 28624595]
  27. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006 Dec;32(6):1303-23 [PMID: 17154774]
  28. J Exp Child Psychol. 2015 Nov;139:51-70 [PMID: 26079274]
  29. Trends Cogn Sci. 2010 Feb;14(2):57-63 [PMID: 20080053]
  30. Trends Cogn Sci. 2001 Dec 1;5(12):525-532 [PMID: 11728910]
  31. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2014 Apr;143(2):527-33 [PMID: 24099578]
  32. Hum Brain Mapp. 2022 Apr 1;43(5):1720-1737 [PMID: 34981603]
  33. Front Pediatr. 2022 Jul 27;10:957823 [PMID: 35967562]
  34. Vision Res. 2015 Oct;115(Pt A):8-16 [PMID: 26277018]
  35. Psychol Bull. 2007 Mar;133(2):346-66 [PMID: 17338604]
  36. Hum Brain Mapp. 2023 Feb 15;44(3):937-947 [PMID: 36250701]
  37. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 May 22;8:331 [PMID: 24904371]
  38. Annu Rev Psychol. 2012;63:427-52 [PMID: 21838545]
  39. Cortex. 2019 Dec;121:44-59 [PMID: 31542467]
  40. Neuropsychologia. 2011 Oct;49(12):3454-65 [PMID: 21903119]
  41. Cortex. 2008 Oct;44(9):1221-33 [PMID: 18761136]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0readingshiftingattentionwordchildren'saccuracyfluencysignificantlytestChinesestudentsrapidnamingcorrelatedtag605AttentionschoolReadingBACKGROUND:studyexploredeffectsOBJECTIVE:sampleconsisted87fourth-gradechildrenShaoxingCityChinaMETHODS:completedmeasurestaskautomatizedRESULTS:resultsshowedscoresspecificallytag1ps < 0scorealsop < 0Accordingregressionanalysisevencontrollingautomaticaffectedapproximately600 msp = 011affectSHORTCONCLUSION:findingssuggestassociatedEducatorsfocusdevelopingimproveabilityeffectprimaryPrimaryWord

Similar Articles

Cited By