Visual complexity in orthographic learning: Modeling learning across writing system variations

ABSTRACT The visual complexity of orthographies varies across writing systems. Prior research has shown that complexity strongly influences the initial stage of reading development: the perceptual learning of grapheme forms. This study presents a computational simulation that examines the degree to which visual complexity leads to grapheme learning difficulty. We trained each of 131 identical neural networks to learn the structure of a different orthography and demonstrated a strong, positive association between network learning difficulty and multiple dimensions of grapheme complexity. We also tested the model’s performance against grapheme complexity effects on behavioral same/different judgments. Although the model was broadly consistent with human performance in how processing difficulty depended on the complexity of the tested orthography, as well as its relationship to viewers’ first-language orthography, discrepancies provided insight into important limitations of the model. We discuss how visual complexity can be a factor leading to reading difficulty across writing systems.

[1]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Reducing the Dimensionality of Data with Neural Networks , 2006, Science.

[2]  Shinsuke Shimojo,et al.  Character complexity and redundancy in writing systems over human history , 2005, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[3]  Narayanan Srinivasan,et al.  Orthographic characteristics speed Hindi word naming but slow Urdu naming: evidence from Hindi/Urdu biliterates , 2011 .

[4]  Qiong Zhang,et al.  The Structures of Letters and Symbols throughout Human History Are Selected to Match Those Found in Objects in Natural Scenes , 2006, The American Naturalist.

[5]  Mark S. Seidenberg Connectionist models of reading , 2007 .

[6]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. , 1981 .

[7]  Xiaolan Fu,et al.  Benefits and costs of uniqueness in multiple object tracking: The role of object complexity , 2012, Vision Research.

[8]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  Computing the meanings of words in reading: cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes. , 2004, Psychological review.

[9]  Ben Fry,et al.  Getting Started with Processing , 2010 .

[10]  Ram Frost,et al.  Towards a universal model of reading , 2012, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[11]  P. H. Seymour,et al.  Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. , 2003, British journal of psychology.

[12]  Ovid J. L. Tzeng,et al.  Dyslexia across languages : orthography and the brain-gene-behavior link , 2011 .

[13]  D. Plaut,et al.  SD-squared: on the association between semantic dementia and surface dyslexia. , 2007, Psychological review.

[14]  Hua Shu,et al.  Sublexical Processing in Reading Chinese: A Development Study , 1999 .

[15]  M. Chun,et al.  Dissociable neural mechanisms supporting visual short-term memory for objects , 2006, Nature.

[16]  M Coltheart,et al.  DRC: a dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. , 2001, Psychological review.

[17]  Colin J Davis,et al.  The spatial coding model of visual word identification. , 2010, Psychological review.

[18]  John Everatt,et al.  Cross language learning disabilities and verbal versus spatial memory , 2006, Cognitive Processing.

[19]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Understanding normal and impaired word reading: computational principles in quasi-regular domains. , 1996, Psychological review.

[20]  Rebecca Treiman,et al.  Similarities Among the Shapes of Writing and Their Effects on Learning. , 2011, Written language and literacy.

[21]  Hua Shu,et al.  Simulating Language-specific and Language-general Effects in a Statistical Learning Model of Chinese Reading. , 2009, Journal of memory and language.

[22]  Alberto Testolin,et al.  Modeling language and cognition with deep unsupervised learning: a tutorial overview , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[23]  E. Gibson Principles of Perceptual Learning and Development , 1969 .

[24]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  Reading in different writing systems: One architecture, multiple solutions. , 2011 .

[25]  R. Treiman,et al.  Learning to spell in an alphasyllabary: The case of Kannada , 2010 .

[26]  David C. Plaut,et al.  Are non-semantic morphological effects incompatible with a distributed connectionist approach to lexical processing? , 2000 .

[27]  Jonathan Grainger,et al.  Deep Learning of Orthographic Representations in Baboons , 2014, PloS one.

[28]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  Phonology, reading acquisition, and dyslexia: insights from connectionist models. , 1999, Psychological review.

[29]  Guigang Zhang,et al.  Deep Learning , 2016, Int. J. Semantic Comput..

[30]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  Simulating consistency effects and individual differences in nonword naming: A comparison of current models , 2006 .

[31]  Jürgen Schmidhuber,et al.  Deep learning in neural networks: An overview , 2014, Neural Networks.

[32]  C. Perfetti,et al.  The lexical quality hypothesis , 2002 .

[33]  Heather Winskel,et al.  Reading in Thai: the case of misaligned vowels , 2008 .

[34]  Paul W. B. Atkins,et al.  Models of reading aloud: Dual-route and parallel-distributed-processing approaches. , 1993 .

[35]  Ying Liu,et al.  The lexical constituency model: some implications of research on Chinese for general theories of reading. , 2005, Psychological review.

[36]  Michael F. Graves,et al.  Growth of reading vocabulary in diverse elementary schools: Decoding and word meaning. , 1990 .

[37]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Learning representations by back-propagating errors , 1986, Nature.

[38]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  Properties of school Chinese: implications for learning to read. , 2003, Child development.

[39]  Andrew Watson,et al.  Perimetric Complexity of Binary Digital Images , 2012 .

[40]  D. Pelli,et al.  Feature detection and letter identification , 2006, Vision Research.

[41]  David C. Plaut,et al.  Structure and Function in the Lexical System: Insights from Distributed Models of Word Reading and Lexical Decision , 1997 .

[42]  Margaret J. Snowling,et al.  Reading in an Alphasyllabary: Implications for a Language Universal Theory of Learning to Read , 2012 .

[43]  M. Taft The Handbook of East Asian Psycholinguistics: Processing of characters by native Chinese readers , 2006 .

[44]  David C. Plaut,et al.  A connectionist approach to word reading and acquired dyslexia: extension to sequential processing , 1999, Cogn. Sci..

[45]  Manuel Perea,et al.  The overlap model: a model of letter position coding. , 2008, Psychological review.

[46]  Charles Hulme,et al.  The science of reading: A handbook. , 2005 .

[47]  J. Hanley,et al.  Phonological awareness and visual skills in learning to read Chinese and English , 1995, Cognition.

[48]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: part 1.: an account of basic findings , 1988 .

[49]  Charles A. Perfetti,et al.  Universal Reading Processes Are Modulated by Language and Writing System , 2013 .

[50]  Catherine McBride-Chang,et al.  Visual spatial skill: a consequence of learning to read? , 2011, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[51]  Sonali Nag,et al.  Early reading in Kannada: The pace of acquisition of orthographic knowledge and phonemic awareness , 2007 .

[52]  Raphiq Ibrahim,et al.  Perceptual load in the reading of Arabic: Effects of orthographic visual complexity on detection , 2011 .

[53]  Yee Whye Teh,et al.  A Fast Learning Algorithm for Deep Belief Nets , 2006, Neural Computation.

[54]  Marco Zorzi,et al.  Deep generative learning of location-invariant visual word recognition , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[55]  Katsuo Tamaoka,et al.  The effects of visual complexity for Japanese kanji processing with high and low frequencies , 2013 .

[56]  C. Whitney How the brain encodes the order of letters in a printed word: The SERIOL model and selective literature review , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[57]  Chuanren Ke,et al.  Radical Awareness and Word Acquisition Among Nonnative Learners of Chinese , 2007 .

[58]  James L. McClelland,et al.  A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. , 1989, Psychological review.

[59]  David C. Plaut,et al.  Connectionist Approaches to Reading , 2008 .

[60]  Dennis Norris,et al.  A stimulus sampling theory of letter identity and order , 2010 .

[61]  L. Tan,et al.  Reading depends on writing, in Chinese. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[62]  Philip T. Quinlan,et al.  Child and Symbol Factors in Learning to Read a Visually Complex Writing System , 2014 .

[63]  G. Woodman,et al.  Storage of features, conjunctions and objects in visual working memory. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[64]  Catherine McBride-Chang,et al.  Poor Readers of Chinese and English: Overlap, Stability, and Longitudinal Correlates , 2013 .

[65]  Evan F. Risko,et al.  Not all visual features are created equal: early processing in letter and word recognition , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.