Inflection, frequency, and the word superiority effect

Günther, Hartmut; Gfroerer, Stefan; Weiss, Leonhard

doi:10.1007/bf00308888

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They are robust in lexical decision and tachistoscopic whole report, but they are smaller and more variable in speeded pronunciation and forced-choice tachistoscopic recognition. The latter task has sometimes produced results like ours, in which words are processed more efficiently than pseudowords, but frequency effects do not appear at all within the corpus of words used as stimuli (Gunther, Gfroerer, & Weiss, 1984; Manelis, 1977). Thus it may be that differential familiarity is not as important to the speed or likelihood of lexical activation as has been widely believed.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 49%

Orthography, familiarity, and meaningfulness reconsidered: Attentional strategies may affect the lexical sensitivity of visual code formation.

Brown¹,

Carr²,

Chaderjian³

1987

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three same-different matching experiments used strings of letters as stimuli to explore the influence of orthography, familiarity, and lexical meaningfulness on visual code formation for words. In Experiment 1, larger effects of lexical meaningfulness occurred under conditions of visual stimulus degradation than when stimuli were bright and easy to resolve. These results were consistent with either of two different strategies that could be taken in the matching task: selectively attending to the visual code or dividing attention between the visual and phonological codes. Under the selective or visual strategy, the interaction between lexicality and degradation would arise from lexical feedback into visual code formation for degraded stimuli. Under the divided-attention, or multicode, strategy, the interaction would arise from increased reliance on lexically sensitive phonological codes for degraded stimuli. Experiments 2 and 3 included diagnostics of the two strategies and showed that either could occur, but that only one produced the interaction. In the selective, or visual, pattern of results, which was observed in Experiment 2, lexicality interacted with the visual quality of the stimulus display, and there was no influence of phonological confusability between the strings being matched. This suggests that decisions were based on visual codes and that lexicality facilitated the formation of those codes, producing greater benefits under demanding visual conditions. In the divided attention, or multicode, pattern, observed in Experiment 3, lexicality and visual quality produced additive effects, while phonological confusability interfered wih different decisions. This suggests that decisions were based on multiple, potentially redundant codes-visual and phonological-and that in such a situation the facilitatory influence of lexicality on visual code formation does not occur. Thus a trade-off may exist between two modes of processing. Focusing attention on a single code may increase the code's sensitivity to knowledge-driven feedback, whereas dividing attention among a set of codes may promote the utilization of intercede redundancy at the expense of reducing sensitivity to knowledge-driven feedback.Theorists often assume that reading depends on many of the reading depends upon the processes of visual encoding in a way same language processing mechanisms that serve listening. In that listening does not. The present work is an attempt to idenat least one respect, however, reading must depend on a different tify the linguistic properties of printed words to which the visual mechanism, because the initial stimulus input for reading is vi-system is sensitive during its encoding operations-the "funcsual, whereas the initial input for listening is auditory. Thus tional stimulus" for visual code formation, to borrow a phrase from McConkie and Zola (1981).

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 49%

Orthography, familiarity, and meaningfulness reconsidered: Attentional strategies may affect the lexical sensitivity of visual code formation.

Brown¹,

Carr²,

Chaderjian³

1987

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These authors concluded that, favorable to the AVM, "... we can find no evidence in our data or elsewhere that two-alternative forced-choice performance on masked word displays shows a word-frequency effect" (p. 591). Similarly, as pointed out by Henderson (1987), Giinther, Gfroerer, and Weiss (1984) claim not to have been able to find any forced-choice experiment in the literature that exhibited a reliable effect of word frequency. Paap et al (1982) used this observed absence of a word frequency effect in the Reicher paradigm to argue in favor of a frequency-independent initial activation stage in visual word recognition (see also Paap & Johansen, 1994).…”

Section: Word Superiority Effect Word Frequency and Word Specificitymentioning

confidence: 77%

A dual read-out model of word context effects in letter perception: Further investigations of the word superiority effect.

Grainger¹,

Jacobs²

1994

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A dual read-out model of context effects in letter perception is described that predicts forced-choice accuracy in the Reicher paradigm and its relation to word reportability. It is hypothesized that a correct choice to a letter in a word context is made when either the correct letter representation or a word representation containing the correct letter in the correct position reaches a response threshold (a criterion level of activation). This hypothesis was implemented using the basic architecture of the interactive activation model (J. L. McClelland & D. E. Rumelhart, 1981) in its semistochastic variant (A. M. Jacobs & J. Grainger, 1992). The model successfully captures the data of J. C. Johnston (1978), otherwise thought to be critically damaging for this type of model, and accurately predicts performance in a series of new experiments using the Reicher paradigm.

show abstract

“…Because IA models of visual word recognition, including the multiple read-out model, code word frequency in terms of the resting level activation of word detector units, one might expect them to predict the presence of word frequency effects in data-limited, forced-choice paradigms such as the Reicher-Wheeler task. This category of model must therefore explain why word frequency effects are generally not robust in the Reicher-Wheeler task (Günther, Gfroerer, & Weiss, 1984). In a recent article (Grainger & Jacobs, 1994), we argued that it might not be the use of data-limited procedures as such that renders the word frequency effect so hard to find (as predicted by the AV model) but rather the use of forced-choice methodology in the Reicher-Wheeler task.…”

Section: Part 2: Further Simulation Studies On Orthographic Neighborh...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model.

Grainger¹,

Jacobs²

1996

Psychological Review

1,022

1,327

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A model of orthographic processing is described that postulates read-out from different information dimensions, determined by variable response criteria set on these dimensions. Performance in a perceptual identification task is simulated as the percentage of trials on which a noisy criterion set on the dimension of single word detector activity is reached. Two additional criteria set on the dimensions of total lexical activity and time from stimulus onset are hypothesized to be operational in the lexical decision task. These additional criteria flexibly adjust to changes in stimulus material and task demands, thus accounting for strategic influences on performance in this task. The model unifies results obtained in response-limited and data-limited paradigms and helps resolve a number of inconsistencies in the experimental literature that cannot be accommodated by other current models of visual word recognition.

show abstract

Inflection, frequency, and the word superiority effect

Cited by 9 publications

References 24 publications

Orthography, familiarity, and meaningfulness reconsidered: Attentional strategies may affect the lexical sensitivity of visual code formation.

Orthography, familiarity, and meaningfulness reconsidered: Attentional strategies may affect the lexical sensitivity of visual code formation.

A dual read-out model of word context effects in letter perception: Further investigations of the word superiority effect.

Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About