One Process, Not Two, in Reading Aloud: Lexical Analogies Do the Work of Non-Lexical Rules

Kay, Janice; Marcel, Anthony J.

doi:10.1080/14640748108400800

Cited by 211 publications

(118 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

112

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The alternative view of pronunciation is that forwarded by Glushko (1979) and subsequently advocated by Kay and Marcel (1981). The basic idea of Glushko's "activation and synthesis" model is best explained in his own words:…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Redefining the regularity effect

Parkin

1984

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study reports two experiments that further explore the regularity effect in single-word pronunciation. Experiment 1 shows that regularity effects are found only with ;rregular words that are "true" exceptions (e.g., PINT, MONK, BROAD). Words that are irregular in terms of grapheme-to-phoneme correspondence rules, but either are regular in terms of a higher order correspondence rule [e.g., PALM, HEALTH) or possess a divergent, although reasonably common, correspondence (e.g., GLOVE, HEAD), produce response times similar to those produced by regular words. These results indicate that the regularity effect is restricted to a smaller set of words than previously has been thought. Experiment 2 examines the regularity effect when subjects are required to delay their responses by 1,500 msec; no difference between exception and regular words is found. This finding indicates that previous demonstrations of the regularity effect cannot be attributed to articulatory differences between exception and regular word samples. Theoretical accounts of the regularity effect are considered briefly.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Redefining the regularity effect

Parkin

1984

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most models of word reading (e.g., Buchanan & Besner, 1993;Carr & Pollatsek, 1985;Coltheart, 1978Coltheart, , 1985Coltheart et al, 1993;Morton & Patterson, 1980;Paap & Noel, 1991;Patterson & Morton, 1985;Reggia, Marsland, & Berndt, 1988;Seidenberg & McClelland, 1989;Shallice & McCarthy, 1985, but see Kay & Marcel, 1981;Van Orden, Pennington, & Stone, 1990, for exceptions) have (at least) two ways of pronouncing written words-that is, of mapping orthography to phonology. The first derives the meaning (semantics) of the word as an intermediate representation; the second bypasses semantics and maps directly from orthography to phonology.…”

Section: Cognitive Remediation Of Acquired Dyslexiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Relearning after Damage in Connectionist Networks: Toward a Theory of Rehabilitation

1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Connectionist modeling offers a useful computational framework for exploring the nature of normal and impaired cognitive processes. The current work extends the relevance of connectionist modeling in neuropsychology to address issues in cognitive rehabilitation: the degree and speed of recovery through retraining, the extent to which improvement on treated items generalizes to untreated items, and how treated items are selected to maximize this generalization. A network previously used to model impairments in mapping orthography to semantics is retrained after damage. The degree of relearning and generalization varies considerably for different lesion locations, and has interesting implications for understanding the nature and variability of recovery in patients. In a second simulation, retraining on words whose semantics are atypical of their category yields more generalization than retraining on more typical words, suggesting a counterintuitive strategy for selecting items in patient therapy to maximize recovery. In a final simulation, changes in the pattern of errors produced by the network over the course of recovery is used to constrain explanations of the nature of recovery of analogous braindamaged patients. Taken together, the findings demonstrate that the nature of relearning in damaged connectionist networks can make important contributions to a theory of rehabilitation in patients.

show abstract

“…Marcel (1980) suggested that in the process of reading, the reader parses the letter string not only by a cumulative exhaustive procedure, but also according to morphemic specifications that are in the visual lexicon. Kay and Marcel (1981) presented subjects with nonwords containing legal morphemes and demonstrated that naming latencies depended on the pronunciation regularity of the morphemes. Kay and Marcel therefore suggested that morphemic units are probably the basis on which beginning readers generate phonology.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The crossword puzzle paradigm: The effectiveness of different word fragments as cues for the retrieval of words

Goldblum

Frost

1988

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated the internal structure of words in the mental lexicon by using a crossword puzzle paradigm. In two experiments, subjects were presented with word fragments along with a semantic cue, and were asked to retrieve the whole word that contained the presented fragment and was compatible with the semantic information. In Experiment 1, we found that any cluster of three adjacent letters facilitated retrieval better than dispersed letters. Moreover, syllabic clusters had a greater facilitative effect than nonsyllabic pronounceable clusters or nonpronounceable clusters. In Experiment 2, we found that syllable units facilitated retrieval better than morphemic units. The results are interpreted as evidence for the existence oflexical subunits that are larger than the letter but smaller than the word, and that are organized according to phonologic principles. We propose an interactive model for how crossword puzzles are solved.In this study we are concerned with the following questions: Does the mental lexicon contain units smaller than the whole word but larger than the individual letter, and, if so, what kind of units are they? Previous answers to these questions have been modality specific. There is wide agreement that syllabic units play an important role in auditory word perception (e.g., Kahn, 1976; Mehler, Dommergues, Frauenfelder, & Segui, 1981;Segui, 1984). In research on visual word perception, on the other hand, there is conflicting evidence as to what the subword units might be, and whether or not the visually presented stimuli undergo phonologic as well as visual processing. Spoehr and Smith (1975) showed that a vocalic center group (YCG) is more easily perceived than a similar cluster of letters not containing a vowel. Their use of the YCG is based on the work of Hansen and Rodgers (1965), who defined a YCG as a cluster consisting of a vowel with a consonant or consonants on either side, where the whole cluster forms a pronounceable unit. AN, CAN, ANT, and CANT are examples ofYCGs. Spoehr and Smith (1973; see also Spoehr, 1978) also showed that one-syllable words are processed faster and more accurately than two-The authors wish to thank

show abstract

One Process, Not Two, in Reading Aloud: Lexical Analogies Do the Work of Non-Lexical Rules

Cited by 211 publications

References 9 publications

Redefining the regularity effect

Redefining the regularity effect

Relearning after Damage in Connectionist Networks: Toward a Theory of Rehabilitation

The crossword puzzle paradigm: The effectiveness of different word fragments as cues for the retrieval of words

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About