Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Learning and Individual Diferences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif “Zooming in” on orthographic knowledge to clarify the relationship between rapid automatised naming (RAN) and word reading Kamariani Houlis ⁎ , John H. Hogben, Troy Visser, Jeneva L. Ohan, Mike Anderson, Steve M. Heath School of Psychological Science, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, 6009, Western Australia, Australia ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Rapid automatised naming Orthographic knowledge Word reading Efciency ABSTRACT Studies of relationships between orthographic knowledge (OK), rapid automatised naming (RAN) and reading have yielded mixed results due to inconsistency in measures used, the defnition of OK and group characteristics. We comprehensively examined OK (MGR; mental graphemic representations and GOK; generic orthographic knowledge, accuracy/efciency); alpha/non-alphanumeric RAN (ANRAN/NANRAN) and word reading (accu- racy/efciency) with control for nonverbal reasoning and phonological awareness. In 169 Grade 6 children, ANRAN uniquely infuenced MGR (accuracy/efciency), with NANRAN infuencing only GOK efciency. ANRAN/NANRAN infuenced word reading efciency directly/indirectly through MGR efciency. We observed similar direct/indirect efects on word reading accuracy from ANRAN and MGR accuracy but only indirect infuence from NANRAN through MGR accuracy. Further analyses indicated that RAN and OK relate reciprocally when infuencing word reading. Our inference that both RAN and OK types, especially ANRAN and MGR, in- fuence word reading by interactively and diferentially accessing the same neural substrata as reading, should inform future research and intervention. 1. Introduction Rapid automatised naming (RAN) is a well-known task that mea- sures serial naming speed for highly familiar visually presented stimuli (Denckla & Rudel, 1976), and is commonly subdivided into alphanu- meric RAN (ANRAN: naming digits or letters) and non-alphanumeric RAN (NANRAN: naming colours or objects). Slower RAN is related to poorer reading fuency and efciency (fast and accurate word reading; e.g., Denckla & Rudel, 1976; Norton & Wolf, 2012; Wolf & Bowers, 1999). This is true even when controlling for phonological awareness (Gillon, 2004), morphological awareness (e.g., Roman, Kirby, Parrila, Wade-Woolley, & Deacon, 2009), IQ (e.g., Lervåg, Bråten, & Hulme, 2009), speed of processing (e.g., Cutting & Denckla, 2001), letter knowledge (e.g., Kirby, Parrila, & Pfeifer, 2003), short-term memory (e.g., Parrila, Kirby, & McQuarrie, 2004), and orthographic knowledge (OK). According to Apel (2011), OK refers to information held in memory that guides how we represent spoken language in written form. This includes information that is both lexical (i.e., word-specifc re- presentations) and sublexical (i.e., orthographic information applied within and across words). However, despite decades of research there is still little clarity about the precise nature of the RAN-reading relationship. As will be highlighted below, we suggest that this likely stems from methodolo- gical issues including high levels of sample heterogeneity (age, lan- guage, diagnostic status of participants), inconsistent operational def- nitions, and uncertain task validity. We then go on to address these concerns, while focusing on two key empirical issues: 1) the role of the two diferent types of OK in the RAN-word reading relationship, and 2) the unique contribution of each RAN type to word reading. 1.1. The role of orthographic knowledge in the RAN-reading relationship Over the last three decades, the development and use of OK have emerged as central issues in literacy acquisition (e.g., Araújo, Faísca, Bramão, Petersson, & Reis, 2014; Bowers & Wolf, 1993; Georgiou, Aro, Liao, & Parrila, 2016; Georgiou, Parrila, Kirby, & Stephenson, 2008; Georgiou, Parrila, & Papadopoulos, 2016; Hagiliassis, Pratt, & Johnston, 2006; Roman et al., 2009). Early work by Bowers and col- leagues suggested that RAN relates to word reading because it refects the efciency of access to, and the quality of orthographic representa- tions (Bowers, Sunseth, & Golden, 1999; Bowers & Wolf, 1993; Sunseth & Bowers, 2002). They reasoned that if children's speed of visual letter identifcation (as indexed by naming speed) is too slow to permit contemporaneous activation and representation of letter sequences https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.101756 Received 13 June 2018; Received in revised form 3 July 2019; Accepted 10 July 2019 ⁎ Corresponding author at: School of Psychological Science (M304), 35 Stirling Highway, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia. E-mail address: houlik01@gmail.com (K. Houlis). Learning and Individual Differences 74 (2019) 101756 1041-6080/ Crown Copyright © 2019 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. T