@misc{OlsonKlieglDavidsonetal.1985,
  author    = {Olson, Richard K. and Kliegl, Reinhold and Davidson, Brian J. and Foltz, Gregory},
  title     = {Individual and developmental differences in reading disability},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-39916},
  year      = {1985},
  abstract  = {I. Introduction A. Theoretical Framework and Selection of Tests B. Related Studies of Reading Disability Subtypes C. Overview of Specific Questions and Article Outline II. Selection criteria nd performance on standardized measures III. Group differences between disabled and normal readers A. Phonetic Memory B. Picture-Naming Speed and Automatic Responses to Print C. Phonological and Orthographic Skill D. Easy Regular and Exception Word Reading E. Difficult Regular and Exception Words IV. Individual diferences in reading disability A. Phonological Skill, Orthographic Skill, and the Regularity Effect B. Phonological Skill, Orthographic Skill, and Spelling Errors V. Eye movement reading style A. The "Plodder-Explorer" Dimension of Eye Movement Reading Style B. Eye Movements, Coding Skills, and Spelling Ratings C. Verbal Intelligence and the Plodder-Explorer Dimension D. Eye Movements in a Nonreading Task and the "Visual-Spatial" Subtype VI. Distribution and etiology of reading disabilities A. Distribution Issues B. Etiology of Reading Disabilities VII. Summary and new directions in research},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{OlsonDavidsonKliegletal.1984,
  author    = {Olson, Richard K. and Davidson, Brian J. and Kliegl, Reinhold and Davies, Susan E.},
  title     = {Development of phonetic memory in disabled and normal readers},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-16888},
  year      = {1984},
  abstract  = {The development of phonetic codes in memory of 141 pairs of normal and disabled readers from 7.8 to 16.8 years of age was tested with a task adapted from L. S. Mark, D. Shankweiler, I. Y. Liberman, and C. A. Fowler (Memory \& Cognition, 1977, 5, 623-629) that measured false-positive errors in recognition memory for foil words which rhymed with words in the memory list versus foil words that did not rhyme. Our younger subjects replicated Mark et al., showing a larger difference between rhyming and nonrhyming false-positive errors for the normal readers. The older disabled readers' phonetic effect was comparable to that of the younger normal readers, suggesting a developmental lag in their use of phonetic coding in memory. Surprisingly, the normal readers' phonetic effect declined with age in the recognition task, but they maintained a significant advantage across age in the auditory WISC-R digit span recall test, and a test of phonological nonword decoding. The normals' decline with age in rhyming confusion may be due to an increase in the precision of their phonetic codes.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{OlsonKlieglDavidson1983,
  author    = {Olson, Richard K. and Kliegl, Reinhold and Davidson, Brian J.},
  title     = {Eye Movements in Reading Disability},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-39880},
  year      = {1983},
  abstract  = {Contents: I. Introduction II. Word Coding Processes A. Word Recognition B. Orthographic Coding C. Phonological Coding III. Eye Monitor and Reading Task IV. Group Differences V. Dimensions of Individual Differences A. Regressive Fixation Index and Word Recognition B. Regressive Fixation Index and IQ C. Regressive Fixation Index and Saccade Length D. Regressive Fixation Index and Relative Phonological Skill VI. Multiple Regression Models of Individual Differences A. Disabled Readers in the Aloud Condition B. Disabled Readers in the Silent Condition C. Normal Readers in Silent and Aloud Conditions VII. Conclusions},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{KlieglOlsonDavidson1983,
  author    = {Kliegl, Reinhold and Olson, Richard K. and Davidson, Brian J.},
  title     = {On problems of unconfounding perceptual and language processes},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-39890},
  year      = {1983},
  abstract  = {Contents: I. Introduction II. Word Length and Word Frequency III. Preferred and Convenient Viewing Position IV. Influences across Words A. Serial Dependencies B. Lack of Saccadic Resilience V. Conclusion},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{OlsonKlieglDavidson1983,
  author    = {Olson, Richard K. and Kliegl, Reinhold and Davidson, Brian J.},
  title     = {Dyslexic and normal readers' eye movements},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-41071},
  year      = {1983},
  abstract  = {Dyslexic and normal readers' eye movements were compared while tracking a moving fixation point and in reading. Contrary to previous reports, the dyslexic and normal readers did not differ in their number of saccades, percentage of regressions, or stability of fixations in the tracking task. Thus, defective oculomotor control was not associated with or a causal factor in dyslexia, and the dyslexics' abnormal eye movements in reading must be related to differences in higher cognitive processes. However, individual differences in oculmotor efficiency, independent of reading ability, were found within both the dyslexic and normal groups, and these differences were correlated in reading and tracking tasks.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{KlieglOlsenDavidson1982,
  author    = {Kliegl, Reinhold and Olsen, Richard K. and Davidson, Brian J.},
  title     = {Regression analyses as a tool for studying reading processes : comment on Just and Carpenter's eye fixation theory},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-16857},
  year      = {1982},
  abstract  = {Just and Carpenter (1980) presented a theory of reading based on eye fixations wherein their "psycholinguistic" variables accounted for 72\% of the variance in word gaze durations. This comment raises some statistical and theoretical problems with their use of simultaneous regression analysis of gaze duration measures and with the resulting theory of reading. A major problem was the confounding of perceptual with psycholinguistic factors. New eye fixation data are presented to support these criticisms. Analysis of fixations within words revealed that most gaze duration variance was contributed by number of fixations rather than by fixation duration.},
  language  = {en}
}