For simplicity, contemporary models of written-word recognition and reading have unspecified feature/letter levels-they predict that the visually similar substituted-letter nonword PEQPLE is as effective at activating the word PEOPLE as the visually dissimilar substituted-letter nonword PEYPLE. Previous empirical evidence on the effects of visual similarly across letters during written-word recognition is scarce and nonconclusive. To examine whether visual similarity across letters plays a role early in word processing, we conducted two masked priming lexical decision experiments (stimulus-onset asynchrony = 50 ms). The substituted-letter primes were visually very similar to the target letters (u/v in Experiment 1 and i/j in Experiment 2; e.g., nevtral-NEUTRAL). For comparison purposes, we included an identity prime condition (neutral-NEUTRAL) and a dissimilar-letter prime condition (neztral-NEUTRAL). Results showed that the similarletter prime condition produced faster word identification times than the dissimilar-letter prime condition. We discuss how models of written-word recognition should be amended to capture visual similarity effects across letters.Keywords Visual similarity . Masked priming . Lexical access Contemporary models of written-word recognition and reading in the Roman alphabet share the assumption that lexical access takes place on the basis of case-invariant abstract letter representations that are attained early in processing (Grainger, Dufau, & Ziegler, 2016). For simplicity's sake, these models assume a minimal/null role of visual similarity across letters in lexical access. Using the default parameters in the interactive activation model (Rumelhart & McClelland, 1982) and its successors (e.g., spatial coding model; Davis, 2010), the visually similar substituted-letter prime PEQPLE is as effective at activating the word PEOPLE as the visually dissimilar substituted-letter prime PEYPLE (i.e., each condition yielded 60 processing cycles in masked priming lexical decision using Davis's, 2010, simulator)-note that O and Q share all features but one at the feature-letter level ( ), whereas O and Y do not share any features ( ). Likewise, other leading models posit that all letters are equally confusable (Bayesian reader model: Norris, 2006; Rationale model of eye movements in reading: Bicknell & Levy, 2010) so they would also predict similar word identification times for PEQPLE-PEOPLE and PEYPLE-PEOPLE.Nonetheless, if we assume that it takes time for the cognitive system to encode letter identity (or letter position), visual similarity across letters should have an impact in the early phases of word processing. Clearly, if PEQPLE-PEOPLE produces faster word recognition times than PEYPLE-PEOPLE, modelers should make an effort to develop in greater depth the underpinnings of the links between the feature and letter levels (i.e., this finding could be used as a benchmark for what is there to simulate). An analogy with letter position coding is relevant here: The slot-coding schemes in th...

No abstract

In skilled adult readers, transposed‐letter effects (jugde‐JUDGE) are greater for consonant than for vowel transpositions. These differences are often attributed to phonological rather than orthographic processing. To examine this issue, we employed a scenario in which phonological involvement varies as a function of reading experience: A masked priming lexical decision task with 50‐ms primes in adult and developing readers. Indeed, masked phonological priming at this prime duration has been consistently reported in adults, but not in developing readers (Davis, Castles, & Iakovidis, 1998). Thus, if consonant/vowel asymmetries in letter position coding with adults are due to phonological influences, transposed‐letter priming should occur for both consonant and vowel transpositions in developing readers. Results with adults (Experiment 1) replicated the usual consonant/vowel asymmetry in transposed‐letter priming. In contrast, no signs of an asymmetry were found with developing readers (Experiments 2–3). However, Experiments 1–3 did not directly test the existence of phonological involvement. To study this question, Experiment 4 manipulated the phonological prime‐target relationship in developing readers. As expected, we found no signs of masked phonological priming. Thus, the present data favour an interpretation of the consonant/vowel dissociation in letter position coding as due to phonological rather than orthographic processing.

No abstract

Previous research has shown that early in the word recognition process, there is some degree of uncertainty concerning letter identity and letter position. Here, we examined whether this uncertainty also extends to the mapping of letter features onto letters, as predicted by the Bayesian Reader (Norris & Kinoshita, 2012). Indeed, anecdotal evidence suggests that nonwords containing multi-letter homoglyphs (e.g., rn→m), such as docurnent, can be confusable with their base word. We conducted 2 masked priming lexical decision experiments in which the words/nonwords contained a middle letter that was visually similar to a multi-letter homoglyph (e.g., docurnent [rn-m], presiclent [cl-d]). Three types of primes were employed: identity, multi-letter homoglyph, and orthographic control. We used 2 commonly used fonts: Tahoma in Experiment 1 and Calibri in Experiment 2. Results in both experiments showed faster word identification times in the homoglyph condition than in the control condition (e.g., docurnento-DOCUMENTO faster than docusnento-DOCUMENTO). Furthermore, the homoglyph condition produced nearly the same latencies as the identity condition. These findings have important implications not only at a theoretical level (models of printed word recognition) but also at an applied level (Internet administrators/users). (PsycINFO Database Record