On the dominance of whole-word knowledge in reading aloud

Visser, Troy A. W.; Besner, Derek

doi:10.3758/bf03196192

Cited by 23 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The same finding was reported by Visser and Besner (2001). This long-lag repetition benefit strongly suggests that in the reading-aloud system, the processing of a word primes its future retrieval(s).…”

Section: Competitionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Reading aloud: The cumulative lexical interference effect

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Picture naming shows a cumulative semantic interference effect: Latency for naming a target picture increases as a function of the number of pictures semantically similar to the target that have previously been named (Howard, Nickels, Coltheart, & Cole-Virtue, Cognition 100:464-482, 2006). Howard and colleagues, and also Oppenheim, Dell, and Schwartz (Cognition 114:227-252, 2010), argued that this occurs because of the joint presence in the picture-naming system of three critical properties: shared activation, priming, and competition. They also discussed the possibility that whenever any cognitive system possesses these three properties, a cumulative similaritybased interference effect from repeated use of that cognitive system will occur. We investigated this possibility by looking for a cumulative lexical interference effect when the task is reading aloud: Will the latency of reading a target word aloud increase as a function of the number of words orthographically/phonologically similar to the target that have previously been read aloud? We found that this was so. This supports the general idea that cumulative similarity-based interference effects will arise whenever any cognitive system that possesses the three key properties of shared activation, priming, and competition is repeatedly used.Keywords Reading . Word production . Computational modeling A cumulative semantic interference effect upon word production was reported by Howard, Nickels, Coltheart, and Cole-Virtue (2006). They presented participants with pictures to be named. The pictures were drawn from several semantic categories (animals, fruit, vehicles, etc.). Picture-naming reaction times (RTs) increased linearly as a function of the number of previously named pictures in that category: a cumulative semantic interference effect. Of particular note is the finding that the number of items intervening between two exemplars of the same category did not modulate the interference effect. For example, given the picture sequence pig, house, car, sheep, RTs for sheep would be longer than those for pig, regardless of the number of unrelated interspersed items. Navarrete, Mahon, and Caramazza (2010) replicated this effect. It might be thought of as related to the general phenomenon of retrieval-induced forgetting (Brown, 1981).How might this effect be explained? And might we learn from it something interesting about the mechanisms of speech production? Howard et al. (2006) and Oppenheim, Dell, and Schwartz (2010), employing the same proposed functional architecture of the picturenaming and speech production system, suggested that the effect arises as a joint consequence of three properties of the cognitive system used in picture naming, these properties being shared activation, priming, and competition. Shared activationThese authors argued that the semantic system possesses the property of shared activation. By this is meant the idea that Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article

show abstract

Section: Competitionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Reading aloud: The cumulative lexical interference effect

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Regularly spelled words can be handled by either route, with word frequency being the major determinant of which pathway is selected. These models have a long and venerable history (Coltheart et al, 1977;Marshall and Newcombe, 1973;Meyer et al, 1974;Morton and Patterson, 1980), continue to be updated and expanded (Coltheart et al, 1993(Coltheart et al, , 2001, and continue to garner empirical support (Andrews and Scarratt, 1998;Baayen and Schreuder, 1999;Jobard et al, 2003;Joubert and Lecours, 2000;McKague et al, 2001;Simos et al, 2000;Visser and Besner, 2001). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Some neurophysiological constraints on models of word naming

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The pronunciation of irregular words in deep orthographies like English cannot be specified by simple rules. On the other hand, the fact that novel letter strings can be pronounced seems to imply the existence of such rules. These facts motivate dual-route models of word naming, which postulate separate lexical (whole-word) and non-lexical (rulebased) mechanisms for accessing phonology. We used fMRI during oral naming of irregular words, regular words, and nonwords, to test this theory against a competing single-mechanism account known as the triangle model, which proposes that all words are handled by a single system containing distributed orthographic, phonological, and semantic codes rather than word codes. Two versions of the dual-route model were distinguished: an dexclusiveT version in which activation of one processing route predominates over the other, and a dparallelT version in which both routes are equally activated by all words. The fMRI results provide no support for the exclusive dual-route model. Several frontal, insular, anterior cingulate, and parietal regions showed responses that increased with naming difficulty (nonword > irregular word > regular word) and were correlated with response time, but there was no activation consistent with the predicted response of a nonlexical, rule-based mechanism (i.e., nonword > regular word > irregular word). Several regions, including the angular gyrus and dorsal prefrontal cortex bilaterally, left ventromedial temporal lobe, and posterior cingulate gyrus, were activated more by words than nonwords, but these dlexical routeT regions were equally active for irregular and regular words. The results are compatible with both the parallel dual-route model and the triangle model. dLexical routeT regions also showed effects of word imageability. Together with previous imaging studies using semantic task contrasts, the imageability effects are consistent with semantic processing in these brain regions, suggesting that word naming is partly semantically-mediated. D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Word naming; Dual-route model; Triangle model IntroductionThe correspondence between spoken and written forms of a language is not always systematic. While in some alphabetic orthographies the sound of a word can be worked out using rules of pronunciation, in most, there are varying degrees of irregularity in the mapping between print and sound. In English, for example, Bernard Shaw pointed out that the word ''fish'' could be written ghoti if one were mischievous enough to borrow the spelling for /f/ from rough, the spelling of /I/ from women, and the spelling of /sh/ from nation. Words like colonel and yacht are only some of the more extreme examples of such irregularity of pronunciation, which is pervasive in English and is seen in many of its more common words, including some, many, of, the, and word just used in this sentence.While the pronunciation of these dirregularT words would seem to be learned through rote memorization of the whole word, there is...

show abstract

“…Pseudowords can only be completely decoded via the phonological route. The lexical route, on the other hand, involves accessing whole-word representations of stimuli that have been learned through repeated exposure (e.g., Visser and Besner 2001 ), thus resolving more quickly for words that are more frequently encountered ( Frederiksen and Kroll 1976 ), and without regard to word regularity ( Coltheart et al 2001 ). Word regularity determines whether the outputs of the 2 routes converge (regular words) or not (irregular words), a distinction that cannot be made until the “full reading process” occurs, that is, after route computation ( Taylor et al 2013 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Separable Roles for Attentional Control Sub-Systems in Reading Tasks: A Combined Behavioral and fMRI Study

Ihnen¹,

Petersen

Schlaggar

2013

Cerebral Cortex

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attentional control is important both for learning to read and for performing difficult reading tasks. A previous study invoked 2 mechanisms to explain reaction time (RT) differences between reading tasks with variable attentional demands. The present study combined behavioral and neuroimaging measures to test the hypotheses that there are 2 mechanisms of interaction between attentional control and reading; that these mechanisms are dissociable both behaviorally and neuro-anatomically; and that the 2 mechanisms involve functionally separable control systems. First, RT evidence was found in support of the 2-mechanism model, corroborating the previous study. Next, 2 sets of brain regions were identified as showing functional magnetic resonance imaging blood oxygen level-dependent activity that maps onto the 2-mechanism distinction. One set included bilateral Cingulo-opercular regions and mostly right-lateralized Dorsal Attention regions (CO/DA+). This CO/DA+ region set showed response properties consistent with a role in reporting which processing pathway (phonological or lexical) was biased for a particular trial. A second set was composed primarily of left-lateralized Frontal-parietal (FP) regions. Its signal properties were consistent with a role in response checking. These results demonstrate how the subcomponents of attentional control interact with subcomponents of reading processes in healthy young adults.

show abstract

On the dominance of whole-word knowledge in reading aloud

Cited by 23 publications

References 35 publications

Reading aloud: The cumulative lexical interference effect

Reading aloud: The cumulative lexical interference effect

Some neurophysiological constraints on models of word naming

Separable Roles for Attentional Control Sub-Systems in Reading Tasks: A Combined Behavioral and fMRI Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About