» Articles » PMID: 2140402

Investigating Differences in General Comprehension Skill

Overview
Specialty Psychology
Date 1990 May 1
PMID 2140402
Citations 98
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

For adults, skill at comprehending written language correlates highly with skill at comprehending spoken language. Does this general comprehension skill extend beyond language-based modalities? And if it does, what cognitive processes and mechanisms differentiate individuals who are more versus less proficient in general comprehension skill? In our first experiment, we found that skill in comprehending written and auditory stories correlates highly with skill in comprehending nonverbal, picture stories. This finding supports the hypothesis that general comprehension skill extends beyond language. We also found support for the hypotheses that poorer access to recently comprehended information marks less proficient general comprehension skill (Experiment 2) because less skilled comprehenders develop too many mental substructures during comprehension (Experiment 3), perhaps because they inefficiently suppress irrelevant information (Experiment 4). Thus, the cognitive processes and mechanisms involved in capturing and representing the structure of comprehensible information provide one source of individual differences in general comprehension skill.

Citing Articles

Bridging a Gap in Coherence: The Coordination of Comprehension Processes When Viewing Visual Narratives.

Smith M, Hutson J, Newell M, Wing-Paul D, McCarthy K, Loschky L Vision (Basel). 2024; 8(3).

PMID: 39311318 PMC: 11417950. DOI: 10.3390/vision8030050.


The Processing of Lexical Ambiguity: Evidence from Child and Adult Greek.

Kaltsa M, Papadopoulou D J Psycholinguist Res. 2024; 53(1):16.

PMID: 38383830 PMC: 10881745. DOI: 10.1007/s10936-024-10063-y.


Construction or updating? Event model processes during visual narrative comprehension.

Brich I, Papenmeier F, Huff M, Merkt M Psychon Bull Rev. 2024; 31(5):2092-2101.

PMID: 38361105 PMC: 11543759. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-023-02424-w.


Studying Individual Differences in Language Comprehension: The Challenges of Item-Level Variability and Well-Matched Control Conditions.

Blott L, Gowenlock A, Kievit R, Nation K, Rodd J J Cogn. 2023; 6(1):54.

PMID: 37692192 PMC: 10487189. DOI: 10.5334/joc.317.


The impact of bilingualism in within-language conflict resolution: an ERP study.

Andras F, Ramos M, Macizo P Front Psychol. 2023; 14:1173486.

PMID: 37303909 PMC: 10248526. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1173486.


References
1.
Kieras D . Initial mention as a signal to thematic content in technical passages. Mem Cognit. 1980; 8(4):345-53. DOI: 10.3758/bf03198274. View

2.
Kintsch W, Mandel T, Kozminsky E . Summarizing scrambled stories. Mem Cognit. 2013; 5(5):547-52. DOI: 10.3758/BF03197399. View

3.
Greeno J, Noreen D . Time to read semantically related sentences*. Mem Cognit. 2013; 2(1):117-20. DOI: 10.3758/BF03197501. View

4.
Sachs J . Memory in reading and listening to discourse. Mem Cognit. 2013; 2(1):95-100. DOI: 10.3758/BF03197498. View

5.
Merrill E, Sperber R, McCauley C . Differences in semantic encoding as a function of reading comprehension skill. Mem Cognit. 1981; 9(6):618-24. DOI: 10.3758/bf03202356. View