The Reading Process: How Essential are Letters?

Catalyst Volume 8

Reading is such a basic, yet vital, component of our lives. Without the ability to read, we would be unable to comprehend a street sign telling us to stop, a crucial headline in the daily news, or an email telling us that the class we hate the most has been cancelled. Unfortunately, there are people whose ability to read is either impaired or entirely nonexistent. Much research has been done on the reading process and how it is affected by brain impairment; at Rice University, Dr. Simon Fischer-Baum and his team are currently studying the reading deficiencies of stroke patients. Before examining a special case of someone with a reading deficit, an understanding of the fundamentals of reading is necessary.

As English speakers, we might assume the reading process starts with the letters themselves. After all, children are commonly taught to identify each individual letter in the word and its sound. Next, the individual strings the individual sounds together to pronounce the word. Finally, once the words have been identified and pronounced, the person refers to his or her database of words and finds the meaning of the word being read.

While letters are the smallest tangible unit of the words being read, they actually depend on an even more basic concept: Abstract Letter Identities (ALIs). ALIs are representations of letters that allow a person to distinguish between different cases of the same letter, identify letters regardless of font, and know what sound the letter makes. It would appear that the ability to read is entirely contingent on one’s knowledge of these letter identities. However, certain scenarios indicate that this is not entirely true, raising questions about how much influence ALIs have on reading ability.

Dr. Fischer-Baum’s lab is currently exploring one such scenario involving a patient named C. H. This patient suffered from a stroke a few years ago and, as a result, has a severely impaired capacity for reading. Dr. Fischer-Baum and David Kajander, a member of the research staff, have given C. H. tasks in which he reads words directly from a list, identifies words being spelled to him, and spells words that are spoken to him. However, his case is especially interesting because he processes individual letters with difficulty (for example, matching lowercase letters with their uppercase counterparts), yet he can still read to a limited extent. This presents strong evidence against the importance of ALIs in reading because it contradicts the notion that we must have some knowledge of ALIs to have any reading ability at all. It has become apparent that C. H. is using a method of reading that is not based on ALIs.

There are several methods of reading that C. H. might be using. He could be memorizing the shapes of words he encounters and mapping those shapes onto the stimuli presented to him, a process called reading by contour. If this were the case, then he should have a limited ability to read capital letters since they are all the same height and width. C. H. could also utilize partial ALI information and making an educated guess about the rest of the word. If that were true, then he should be very good at reading uncommon words since there are fewer words that share that letter sequence.

In order to pursue this hypothesis, Dr. Fischer-Baum’s lab gave C. H. a task derived from a paper by Dr. David Howard. Published in 1987, the paper describes a patient, T. M., who shows reading deficiencies that are strikingly similar to those of C. H.¹ A new series of reading tasks and lexical decision tasks from this paper required C. H. to determine whether or not a stimulus is a real word. For the reading tasks, a total of 100 stimuli, 80 words, and 20 non-words were used, all varying in length, frequency, and ease of conjuring a mental image of the stimulus. For the lexical decision tasks, 240 stimuli, 120 words, and 120 non-words were used, all varying in frequency, ease of forming a mental picture, and neighborhood density (the number of words that can be created by changing one letter in the original word). Additionally, each of the word lists was presented to C. H. in each of the following formats: vertical, lowercase, alternating case, all caps, and plus signs in between the letters. These criteria were used to create the word lists, which were then presented to C. H. in order to determine which factors were influencing his reading.

After the tasks were completed and the data was collected, C. H.’s results were organized by presentation style and stimuli characteristics. For reading tasks, he scored best overall on stimuli in the lowercase presentation style (30% correct) and worst overall on stimuli in the plus sign presentation style (9% correct). Second worst was his performance on the vertical presentation style (21% correct). For the lexical decision tasks, we saw that C. H. did best on stimuli in the all capital letter presentation style (79.58% correct) and worst on stimuli in the vertical presentation style (64.17% correct), although his second worst performance came in the plus sign presentation style (65% correct). Across both the reading and lexical decision tasks, he scored higher on stimuli that were more frequent, shorter in length, and easier to visualize. In the lexical decision tasks, he scored higher on low-neighborhood density items than high-neighborhood density items.

These results lead us to several crucial conclusions. First, C. H. clearly has a problem with reading words that contain interrupters, as evidenced by his poor performance with reading the plus sign words. Second, C. H. is not using contour information to read; if he were, then his worst performances should have come on the all caps reading tasks, since capital letters do not have any specific contour. Evidence suggests he is indeed using a partial guessing strategy to read because he performed better on low-neighborhood density words than on high-neighborhood density words. These conclusions are significant because they suggest further tests for C. H. More importantly, these conclusions could be especially helpful for people suffering similar reading deficits. For example, presenting information using short, common, and non-abstract words could increase the number of words these people can successfully read, increasing the chance of them interpreting the information correctly. Dr. Fischer-Baum’s lab plans to perform further tasks with C. H. in order to assess his capacity for reading in context.

References

1. Howard, D. Reading Without Letters; The Cognitive Neuropsychology of Language; Lawrence Erlbaum; 1987; pp 27-58.

Recycled Water: The Future of the American West

Catalyst Volume 8

The Western United States has always been dry; San Diego, for example, derives only 15% of its annual water needs from rain.¹ Engineers have constructed creative but short-sighted solutions to the problem of water shortage in response. Rivers have been diverted hundreds of miles to major cities, enabling further urban growth in areas that would otherwise not be able to support it.² This rapid growth, however, comes at the cost of depleting these rivers. Letting entire cities, such as San Diego, Las Vegas, or Phoenix wither away is unrealistic, so scientists must create solutions that are sustainable, environmentally friendly, and relatively easy to implement in order to facilitate the survival of the Western states. Enter the concept of recycled water. Known as “toilet to tap” by its adversaries, recycled water is wastewater that, once cleaned of pathogens, viruses, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and biological matter, is redistributed as drinking water. In order to sustain the existence and growth of Western cities, recycled water must be accepted and utilized.

To understand the need for recycled water, it’s helpful to look at the typical water shortages in the Western United States. Since 1950, there has been a 127% increase in water use nationwide, putting extreme strain on the existing infrastructure and environment.² This increase in water usage has occurred despite the worsening droughts that affect the area. Studies conducted in Salt Lake City show that an increase by even one degree Fahrenheit causes as much as a 6.5% drop in local stream water flow per year.² The increase in temperature will also strain and eventually exhaust the sources from which Western cities get their water. The West is faced with an issue that few wish to confront: if they continue to rely only on traditional water sources, Western cities will literally dry up, forcing residents to move elsewhere and creating massive economic instability nationwide.

One possible solution to water shortages is recycled water. The process of recycling water is intensive, which is understandable given the dangers of contamination. Wastewater is first sent to a sewage treatment plant where filters remove solids and dissolve biological material.³ The wastewater then undergoes normal groundwater treatment. First, microfiltration removes bacteria and protozoa. Then, reverse osmosis is utilized to remove viruses, salts, and pharmaceuticals. Finally, ultraviolet light and hydrogen peroxide destroy “trace organics.”³ After these steps are taken, the treatment plant adds in minerals and discharges it into a reservoir. Months later, the water from the reservoir is treated again and distributed to households.

It is a subject of debate whether water is clean enough after the treatment to be directly distributed without mixing it with reservoir water. Some say that the water produced by the treatment plant is even purer than reservoir water.⁴ Others, however, say that directly releasing treated water into the reservoir instead of letting it percolate through various ground layers permits impurities to remain in the water.⁵ Whether the water is safe enough to be directly consumed depends on the regulatory standards themselves as well as the plant producing the water. When produced according to Environment Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines, recycled water is as safe as traditionally obtained water.⁶

Another concern about recycled water is that treatment plants are unable to entirely remove pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and bacteria such as E. coli. The presence of E. coli could be the result of organic material remaining in the water after treatment. Traces of pharmaceuticals also pose a risk to the consumer. When medicine is flushed down the toilet or sink, it remains in the water supply and can be redistributed to other consumers. Although studies do not deny claims that such trace pharmaceuticals are found in recycled water,⁷ it is important to put this into perspective: even non-recycled water contains trace amounts of pharmaceuticals and is deemed safe for public consumption by the EPA.

Furthermore, many scientists who were once wary of recycled water have changed their opinions. In 1998, the National Research Council (NRC) reported that discharging recycled water into reservoirs was acceptable, “although only as a last resort.”¹ Many people opposed to water reclamation cited this study, emphasizing the fact that it should only be used as a last resort, and not otherwise. The Western states are, however, facing water shortages that will soon require last resorts. More importantly, however, is the NRC’s new statement about wastewater treatment technology: “the possible health risks associated with exposure to chemical contaminants are minimal.”⁶ Thus, those opposed to recycled water cannot continue to use the NRC’s previous stance as backing for their claims. Recycled water that adheres to the EPA’s health and safety guidelines is necessary for the survival of states in the Western U.S.⁸

In addition to safety, cost is also an important factor to consider in the production of recycled water. Currently, the production of recycled water is not subsidized by the government. Due to the additional treatment that waste water requires, the production and distribution of recycled water costs four times more than that of groundwater.¹ If recycled water were to be subsidized, as it is in Orange County, water production would cost only 0.0018 cents per gallon to produce, a small increase from traditional tap water’s cost of 0.0015 cents per gallon.¹ With the U.S. government’s support reclamation plants in the West, the prohibitively high cost would no longer be an issue. Even if recycled water were not subsidized, the added cost could provide long-term societal benefits. By increasing the cost of tap water by introducing government recycling, thus moving the cost from taxpayers in general to those who specifically use the water, cities could decrease water use over time. Residents would, if confronted with rising water prices, make an effort to consume less which would decrease stress on the treatment plants themselves as well as natural resources.

The biggest challenge to recycled water, however, is not its cost or purported health risks, but rather its public perception. The unflattering name, “toilet to tap,” hardly brings to mind the sparkling springs associated with “safe” bottled water. There are large groups of detractors who state that recycled water can’t be trusted, and to some extent, they have reason to maintain this stance. In the past, recycled water facilities released non-potable recycled drinking water in four cities.⁵ Although this potential issue cannot be ignored, the benefits of recycled water when it is produced in a fully functioning facility with enforced safety standards cannot be ignored either. These isolated incidents do not indicate that all recycled water is unsafe, but rather that it must be better regulated.

Despite a number of vocal public groups in opposition to recycled water, there is growing support for the construction and utilization of reclamation facilities. In San Diego, a 2004 poll revealed that 63% of citizens opposed water reclamation; in 2011, this number dropped to 25%.¹ Education is the most influential method for obtaining a higher proportion of positive response. The most common objection to using recycled water revolves around the concept being “disgusting.”⁴ For many, the phrase “toilet to tap” induces an image of the contents of a toilet bowl flowing directly to their kitchen sink. When they are shown the intensive treatment process, though, they understand that the water is safe to drink and environmentally friendly. About 95% of people who have taken tours of the water recycling agree it is feasible.³ If people in the Western states and nationwide are exposed to the method in which wastewater is treated, recycled water may gain popularity.

Recycled water, if able to defeat the social stigma that surrounds it, could be a literal life-saver in the Western United States. While Los Angeles shut down a reclamation facility built in 2002, there has been an effort to reopen it. Doing so could reclaim 9.7 billion gallons of water per year.⁹ While recycled water cannot supply cities like Los Angeles with all the water they need, it is a step in the right direction. By increasing the cost of water to a level where overuse would be discouraged and by instituting water reclamation facilities, the cities of the Western U.S. may be able to survive. The major obstacle to the implementation of recycled water is public disapproval due to ignorance about the process of water recycling and the purity of the final product. However, if educated about the process of water recycling, the public might come to see reclaimed water as a safe and effective water source.

References

1. Barringer, F. As ‘yuck factor’ subsides, treated wastewater flows from taps. The New York Times, Feb. 9, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/science/earth/despite-yuck-factor-treated-wastewater-used-for-drinking.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (accessed Apr. 8, 2014).
2. Ferner, M. These 11 cities may completely run out of water sooner than you think. Huffington Post, Dec. 4, 2013.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/04/water-shortage_n_4378418.html (accessed Apr. 6, 2014).
3. Chu, K. From toilets to tap: How we get tap water from sewage. USA Today, Mar. 3, 2011. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/environment/2011-03-03-1Apurewater03_CV_N.htm (accessed Apr. 8, 2014).
4. Weissmann, D. Texas town closes the toilet-to-tap loop: Is this our future water supply?. Marketplace, Jan. 6, 2014. http://www.marketplace.org/topics/sustainability/texas-town-closes-toilet-tap-loop-our-future-water-supply (accessed Apr 1, 2014).
5. Royte, E. Bottlemania: Big business, local springs, and the battle over America’s drinking water. Bloomsbury: New York, 2008.
6. Than, K. Reclaimed wastewater for drinking: Safe but still a tough sell. National Geographic, Jan 31, 2012. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/01/120131-reclaimed-wastewater-for-drinking/ (accessed Mar. 29, 2014).
7. Research Foundation. Recycled water: How safe is it?, 2011. http://www.athirstyplanet.com/sites/default/files/uploadsfiles/PDF/RA%20Backgrounder_6.4.11_Lo.pdf (accessed Apr. 1, 2014).
8. Mayor opposes ‘toilet-to-tap’ water supply proposal. ABC News, Sept. 13, 2007. http://www.10news.com/news/mayor-opposes-toilet-to-tap-water-supply-proposal (accessed Apr. 8, 2014).
9. Fleischer, M. Don’t Gag: It’s time for L.A. to embrace ‘toilet to tap’. Los Angeles Times, Feb. 4, 2014.  http://articles.latimes.com/2014/feb/04/news/la-ol-drought-toilet-to-tap-water-20140204 (accessed Apr. 1, 2014).