Memory representation for prefixed words

Stanners, Robert F.; Neiser, James J.; Painton, Scott

doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(79)90439-0

Cited by 94 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The finding that the presentation of a word will facilitate later identification of morphologically and phonologically related but not exclusively orthographically related words supports the work of other researchers (see Feldman & Moskovljevic, 1987;Fowler et aI., 1985;Hanson & Wilkenfeld, 1985;Kirsner et aI., 1987;Lima, 1987;Murrell & Morton, 1974;Stanners, Neiser, Hernon, & Hall, 1979;Stanners, Neiser, & Painton, 1979). Directaccess theorists (e.g., Aaronson & Ferres, 1983;Baron, 1973;Becker, 1976Becker, , 1980Bower, 1970;Forster & Chambers, 1973;Frederiksen & Kroll, 1976;Goodman, 1969;Green & Shallice, 1976;Huey, 1908;Kolers, 1970;Martin & Jensen, 1988;Paap et aI., 1982;Smith, 1971) would find it difficult to dismiss the present observations without acknowledging the role morphology and phonology obviously play in word recognition.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…For instance, HEALTH primes HEAL (Fowler et aI., 1985), UNAWARE primes AWARE (Stanners, Neiser, & Painton, 1979), WALK[NG primes WALK (Stanners, Neiser, & Painton, 1979), and DISHONEST primes HONEST (Lima, 1987). Likewise, many experiments have also affirmed the influence that phonological codes have on word recognition.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the repetition priming effect, it is assumed that the presentation of a word induces activation of that word's lexical representation (Forbach et aI., 1974;Monsell, 1985;Morton, 1979;Stanners, Neiser, Hernon, & Hall, 1979;Stanners, Neiser, & Painton, 1979). This increased activation of the word's lexical representation makes it more accessible when the same word is repeated as a target.…”

Section: Repetition Priming Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A large body of evidence indicates that repetition priming effects arise from the shared orthographic and morphological relationship between primes and targets (e.g., HEALTH-HEAL) and that a purely orthographic, or formedbased, relationship between primes and targets (e.g., CAR-CARD) is not sufficient information in and of itself to produce repetition priming effects (see Feldman & Moskovljevic, 1987;Fowler, Napps, & Feldman, 1985;Hanson & Wilkenfeld, 1985;Kirsner, Dunn, & Standen, 1987;Lima, 1987;Murrell & Morton, 1974;Napps, 1985;Napps & Fowler, 1987;Stanners, Neiser, Hernon, & Hall, 1979;Stanners, Neiser, & Painton, 1979). For example, the repetition priming effect has been found to occur when the morphologically related prime and target have marginal differences in pronunciations or spellings (e.g., HEALTH-HEAL; Fowler et aI., 1985;Hanson & Wilkenfeld, 1985).…”

Section: Repetition Priming Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, the repetition priming effect has been found to occur when the morphologically related prime and target have marginal differences in pronunciations or spellings (e.g., HEALTH-HEAL; Fowler et aI., 1985;Hanson & Wilkenfeld, 1985). A study by Stanners, Neiser, and Painton (1979) revealed that both prefixed and stem forms of words (e.g., UNAWARE and AWARE, respectively) facilitated response latencies to subsequent presentations of base word targets (e.g., AWARE). These researchers showed that using both inflected and base word forms of words (e.g., WALKING and WALK, respectively) produced the repetition priming effect in subsequent presentations of base words (e.g., WALK).…”

Section: Repetition Priming Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Testing the direct-access model: GOD does not prime DOG

Huntsman

1998

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In three repetition priming experiments that employed identical (e.g., DOG-DOG) and reversed repetitions (e.g., GOD-DOG), it was found that relative to controls (e.g., DOG-DOG), GOD-type words did not prime DOG-type words. Also, neither DUT-type nor TUD-type nonwords primed DDT-type nonwords. In Experiments 1 and 2, these results occurred using both long-and short-term repetition priming conditions, respectively. In Experiment 3, the word results held under conditions of short-term priming coupled with stimulus misorientation. However, the nonword results resembled the word results (i.e., identical but not reversed repetitions primed nonwords). The failure to provide explicit evidence for direct visual access (e.g., GOD does not prime DOG while DOG does) irrespective of other sources of lexical activation supports theories of word recognition that postulate multiple and varied lexical representations that are activated through a matrix of connections.Most theories of word recognition agree that the process of reading includes both orthographic (i.e., how words look) and phonological (i.e., how words sound when spoken aloud) sources of lexical activation. However, there is disagreement among these theories with respect to the relative importance, the degree of independence, and the time course of orthographic and phonological sources of lexical activation.According to direct-access theories of word recognition, the orthographic representation of a printed word activates its lexical entry directly with minimal, if any, use of phonology (see, e.g., Aaronson & Ferres, 1983;Baron, 1973;Becker, 1976Becker, , 1980Bower, 1970;Forster & Chambers, 1973;Frederiksen & Kroll, 1976;Goodman, 1969;Green & Shallice, 1976;Huey, 1908;Kolers, 1970;Martin & Jensen, 1988;Smith, 1971). Conversely, phonological activation theories of word recognition contend that printed words are pre lexically recoded into a phonological representation. Because recoding occurs via the application ofspelling-sound conversions oforthographic elements within the words, phonological representations play an early role in activating lexical entries prior to recognition (see, e.g., Bloomfield, 1942;Corcoran, 1966; GibPreparation of this report was supported in part by a San Jose State University Psychology Department Research Grant. Additional support was provided by National Aeronautics and Space Administration Cooperative Agreement NCC 2-327 and NCC 2-798 to Kevin Jordan. I thank Sepideh Dadras and Joseph Tajnai for their assistance with stimulus development, Meredith Brown, Rigoberto Gutierres, Melanie Hein, Todd Moore, Jennifer Skinner, Kenneth Smith, and Juanita Traver for their tireless assistance with data collection, and especially Guy Woffindin for his invaluable programming assistance. I also thank Joanne Miller, Guy Van Orden, and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this report. Correspondence should be addressed to L. A. Huntsman, Department of Psychology, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA 95192-0120 (e-m...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Repetition Priming Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Repetition Priming Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Repetition Priming Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Testing the direct-access model: GOD does not prime DOG

Huntsman

1998

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

References

2017

The Handbook of Morphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Expert performance in solving word puzzles: From retrieval cues to crossword clues

Underwood

Deihim²,

Batt³

1994

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crossword enthusiasts were first classified as expert or intermediate on the basis of their performance with a previously unseen set of clues, and then participated in five laboratory experiments designed to capture different aspects of their skilled performance: experiment 1 required the generation of words from a fixed set of letters; experiment 2 monitored the solution of anagrams; experiment 3 required the comipletion of a word of given meaning with only three letters presented; experiment 4 was a lexical decision task with suffixed and pseudosuffixed words and non-words; and experiment 5 was a synonym judgement task with prefixed and suffixed words. Subjects also completed psychometric tests of reasoning and vocabulary. A discriminant function analysis successfully predicted the crossword ability of all subjects on the basis of measures of the generation of words from given letters, the number of anagrams solved, sensitivity to a suffix in a non-word (lexical decision task), sensitivity to a pseudosuffix in a word (synonym judgement task), arid vocabulary score. Cryptic crossword puzzles are solved by a combination of component subskills, including lexical retrieval, clue recognition, and the manipulation of components of words.Crossword puzzles provide us with a potentially productive domain for the investigation of verbal reasoning, but have received very little attention. Simple crossword puzzles have been discussed by Nickerson (I 977) as a tool for the investigation of retrieval cues used to access lexical memory. Clues in these crosswords require the generation of synonyms, antonyms, and associates, as well as phrase completion. A crossword clue of this form might be a single word, to which the puzzler is required to find a synonym, or may contain two words, requiring the puzzler to find a common associate. In each case the solution will be constrained by letter length and by knowledge of adjoining words with shared letters. Nickerson's analysis provides a description of the lexical retrieval routes necessary for generation of candidate words, and of the criteria for acceptance of a candidate as a solution. There are numerous reports of the processes involved in word generation and lexical retrieval similarWe are grateful to

show abstract

Memory representation for prefixed words

Cited by 94 publications

References 7 publications

Testing the direct-access model: GOD does not prime DOG

Testing the direct-access model: GOD does not prime DOG

References

Expert performance in solving word puzzles: From retrieval cues to crossword clues

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About