Authors:

Patterson, K.

Reference:

Year of publication:

1985

CBU number:

1869

Abstract:

One of Humphreys’ and Evett’s many arguments against the dual-route account of oral reading is that no known neuropsychological case can be described as showing abolition of one route together with intact processing by the other route. In this commentary, it is argued that at least one patient in the literature does provide a reasonable approximation to this pattern. THe grounds upon which Humphreys and Evett discard this case are inappropriate, and arise partly from the authors’ selective attention to a single aspect of the patient’s pattern of performance.