On the joint effects of stimulus quality, regularity, and lexicality when reading aloud: New challenges.

Abstract

A number of computational models have been developed over the last 2 decades that are remarkably successful at explaining the process of translating print into sound. Nevertheless, 2 of the most successful computational accounts on the table fail to simulate the results from factorial experiments reported in this article in which university students read aloud letter strings that varied in terms of spelling-sound regularity and lexicality (regular words vs. exception words vs. nonwords) and stimulus quality (bright vs. dim). Skilled readers yielded additive effects of regularity and stimulus quality and additive effects of lexicality and stimulus quality on both RT and errors when nonwords were mixed with words. When only words appeared in the list, there was an interaction in which exception words were less affected by low stimulus quality than regular words were; no existing account anticipates or explains these results. We advance a hypothesis that assumes a novel module that accommodates these data and provide an existence proof in the form of a simulation.

On the joint effects of repetition and stimulus quality in lexical decision: Looking to the past for a new way forward

“…For example, the "direct retrieval" that characterizes a central element in instance theory currently lacks distinct levels. We find it hard to imagine that retrieval of an instance is always simply "one step" as opposed to consisting of multiple steps (e.g., how would one-step retrieval yield the various dissociations seen with brain-damaged patients; how would one-step retrieval explain the contrast between Experiments 1 and 2 for words reported here; how would one-step retrieval account for the list contexts effects reported by Besner et al, 2010;O'Malley & Besner, 2008;Yap et al, 2008, among others? ). nonwords, and persisting lexical activation for words.…”

“…Activation is not passed on until processing at this level has reached some critical level. 5 For related hypotheses about thresholding that consider other context effects, see Besner et al (2010), Besner and Roberts (2003), Blais andBesner (2007), O'Malley and, Reynolds and Besner (2004), and Yap et al (2008). Note also that the present account assumes that thresholding takes place later in the processing stream in the context of lexical decision than suggested by Yap et al (2008).…”

Modulation of additive and interactive effects in lexical decision by trial history.

“…Indeed, Besner, O'Malley, and Robidoux (2010) found an underadditive interaction in a naming task when stimulus quality was manipulated along with spelling-sound regularity: Exception words (e.g., pint) were pronounced more slowly than regular words (e.g., hint), and the effect of stimulus quality was stronger for regular words. In dual-route models such as CDPϩ, exception words take longer to read because they invite two opposing pronunciations, the correct one from the lexical route and an erroneous one from the nonlexical route.…”

“…In dual-route models such as CDPϩ, exception words take longer to read because they invite two opposing pronunciations, the correct one from the lexical route and an erroneous one from the nonlexical route. Besner et al (2010) proposed that under low stimulus quality, the nonlexical route is less active, so its contribution to the computation of a pronunciation response is reduced, paving the way for a more efficient, correct pronunciation of an exception word based on the lexical route. They suggested that the involvement of the nonlexical route might be adjusted dynamically as a low-contrast stimulus is encountered.…”

Reading aloud: New evidence for contextual control over the breadth of lexical activation

“…Recent evidence suggests that a complete answer to this question requires a consideration of context. For instance, list context influences (1) how letter-level processing and lexical-level processing communicate with one another (e.g., Besner & O'Malley, 2009;Besner, O'Malley, & Robidoux, 2010;O'Malley & Besner, 2008) and (2) how semantics affects visual word recognition (e.g., Brown, Stolz, & Besner, 2006;Robidoux, Stolz, & Besner, 2010;Ferguson, Robidoux, & Besner, 2009;Stolz & Neely, 1995). Other work examining print-to-sound translation suggests that context also affects (3) how the breadth of lexical knowledge contributes to the generation of a phonological code.…”