Anagram solution times: A function of the "Ruleout" factor.

Abstract

Anagram solution may be considered to be a process in which an S permutes in an algorithmic fashion all letters in the anagram. However, Ss may find it possible to "rule out" certain permutations because attempting these permutations is highly unlikely to yield an English word. 20 adult Ss were presented with 20 S-letter anagrams in a 20 X 20 Latin square. Ss were randomly assigned to sequences. The anagrams were chosen from 2 levels of frequency on the basis of the Thorndike-Lorge (1944) count. At each frequency level S of the words were "high" ruleout, i.e., permitted elimination of 90-94 of the possible 120 permutations and S were "low" ruleout, permitting elimination of 70-76 of the permutations. Anagrams with "high" ruleout totals were solved significantly more rapidly (p < .01) at both frequency levels.

Type and token bigram frequencies for two-through nine-letter words and the prediction of anagram difficulty

“…For example, in the Mayzner and Tresselt (1966) study, which looked at solution times for 42 anagrams in six conditions, the correlation between the average time taken to solve an anagram across conditions and GTZero calculated from our program is r(40) = .35, p < .05. Similarly for Ronning's (1965) study, GTZero has a correlation of r(18) = .61, p < .02, with solution time. In every case, the correlation of GTZero and the anagram difficulty measure was higher than the top rank measure, whether calculated from Novick and Sherman (2004) or from Solso and Juel (1980).…”

“…For example, for the anagram igthl (light), hg, ht, hl, gt, tg, tl, lh, lg, and lt would all have a frequency of 0 in the first two positions. The measure is a development from Ronning's (1965) rule-out theory of anagram solution, which proposes that anagrams with a low number of bigram combinations that can be "ruled-out" of consideration will be harder to solve. The more nonzero entries there are, the greater the possible competing solutions, which makes the anagram harder to solve (Mendelsohn, 1976).…”

Five down, Absquatulated: Crossword puzzle clues to how the mind works

“…The time required to find solution words for anagrams, for example, was shown long ago to be influenced by such variables as the number of letters in the anagram (Kaplan & Carvellas, 1968), the degree to which the order of the letters of the anagram differs from the order of the letters of the solution word (Mayzner & Tresselt, 1958), the frequency of occurrence in the language of the solution word (Mayzner & Tresselt, 1958), and the bigram transition probabilities of the anagram (Mayzner & Tresselt, 1959, 1962Ronning, 1965). In particular, solutions are found faster when the number of letters in the anagram is small, when the difference between the letter order of anagram and solution word is small, when the frequency of the solution word is high, when the bigram transition probabilities of the anagram are low and those of the solution word are high, and when the anagram does not spell a word.…”

Single-Letter Retrieval Cues for Anagram Solution

“…It is possible that this approach induced a different problem-solving strategy than a between-subjects design would have. For further assessment of the effectiveness of a single letter as a cue for anagram solution, in the present study, four groups of solvers were presented the anagrams used by Ronning (1965). Three of the groups received a single letter of the solution word (first, middle, or last) as a cue, whereas the fourth group received no cue.…”