@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}
}
@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}
}