↓ Skip to main content

Reading as functional coordination: not recycling but a novel synthesis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Reading as functional coordination: not recycling but a novel synthesis
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01046
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Lachmann, Cees van Leeuwen

Abstract

The Functional Coordination approach describes the processes involved in learning to read as a form of procedural learning in which pre-existing skills, mainly from the visual, and auditory domain, are (1) recruited, (2) modified, and (3) coordinated to create the procedures for reading text, which form the basis of subsequent (4) automatization. In this context, we discuss evidence relating to the emerging prevalence of analytic processing in letter perception. We argue that the process of learning to read does not have to lead to a loss of perceptual skill as consequence of a "cultural recycling"; learning to read just leads to a novel synthesis of functions, which are coordinated for reading and then automatized as a package over several years. Developmental dyslexia is explained within this framework as a Functional Coordination Deficit (Lachmann, 2002), since the coordination level is assumed to be most liable to manifest deficiencies. This is because, at this level, the greatest degree of fine tuning of complex functions is required. Thus, developmental dyslexia is not seen as a consequence of a deficient automatization per se, but of automatization of abnormally developed functional coordination.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 64 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 18%
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Professor 4 6%
Other 14 21%
Unknown 14 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 28 42%
Neuroscience 8 12%
Linguistics 4 6%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 15 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 May 2015.
All research outputs
#17,733,724
of 22,772,779 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,373
of 29,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,774
of 252,277 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#313
of 367 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,772,779 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,685 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 252,277 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 367 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.