Pseudohomophone Naming and the Word Frequency Effect

Taft, Marcus; Russell, Bruce W.

doi:10.1080/14640749208401315

Cited by 34 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As such, these effects have typically been examined together by using mixed-list experiments (e.g., Herdman et al, 1996;McCann & Besner, 1987;Seidenberg et al, 1996;Taft & Russell, 1992). However, these effects have not typically co-occurred with each other, contrary to predictions by most contemporary models of word recognition.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, Marmurek and Kwantes examined a condition in which subjects were presented with a block of only pseudohomophone stimuli, and they found base-word frequency effects under this "pure-block" pseudohomophonecondition but not under a "mixed-block" condition (i.e., when pseudohomophones and nonwords are mixed together). Taken together with Taft and Russell's (1992) research, it appears that when using a ratio of lexical to nonlexical stimuli that is 2:1 or greater, base-word frequency effects on pseudohomophone naming latency begin to emerge. 1 Unfortunately, Marmurek and Kwantes did not attempt to exclude poor pseudohomophone items (i.e., pseudohomophones that subjects would consider as nonwords) from their analyses but instead tried to avoid any potential confound by telling their subjects when they were about to be exposed to a pure block of pseudohomophone stimuli.…”

Section: Pseudohomophone Base-word Frequency Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the present study, we considered the conditionsunder which a significant base-word frequency effect is obtainable in pseudohomophone naming. Taft and Russell (1992) obtained an overall pseudohomophone advantage on naming latency and a significant base-word frequency effect (but only with their slower subjects). However, the possibilitythat subjects were treating low-frequency pseudohomophones as nonwords is a potential confound for the significant base-word frequency effect that was obtained.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Diagnostics of phonological lexical processing: Pseudohomophone naming advantages, disadvantages, and base-word frequency effects

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phonological lexical access has been investigated by examining both a pseudohomophone (e.g., brane) base-word frequency effect and a pseudohomophone advantage over pronounceable nonwords (e.g., frane) in a single mixed block of naming trials. With a new set of pseudohomophones and nonwords presented in a mixed block, we replicated the standard finding in the naming literature: no reliable base-word frequency effect, and a pseudohomophone advantage.However, for this and two of three other sets of stimuli-those of Besner (1987), Seidenberg, Petersen, MacDonald, and,and Herdman, LeFevre,and Greenham (1996),respectively-reliableeffectsof base-word frequency on pseudohomophone naming latency were found when pseudohomophones were presented in pure blocks prior to nonwords. Three of the four stimulus sets tested produced a pseudohomophone naming disadvantage when pseudohomophones were presented prior to nonwords. When nonwords were presented first, these effects were diminished. A strategy-based scaling account of the data is argued to provide a better explanation of the data than is the criterion-homogenization theory (Lupker, Brown, & Colombo, 1997).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Pseudohomophone Base-word Frequency Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Diagnostics of phonological lexical processing: Pseudohomophone naming advantages, disadvantages, and base-word frequency effects

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This pseudohomophone advantage has since been replicated a number of times (Borowsky et al, 2002 [two experiments]; Grainger, Spinelli, & Ferrand, 2000;Herdman, LeFevre, & Greenham, 1996 [two experiments]; Marmurek & Kwantes, 1996 [three experiments]; Taft & Russell, 1992).…”

Section: The Pseudohomophone Advantage In a Mixed Listmentioning

confidence: 99%

Basic processes in reading: A critical review of pseudohomophone effects in reading aloud and a new computational account

Reynolds

Besner

2005

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A thorough understanding of the processes underlying the seemingly effortless act of reading a single letter string aloud would be a considerable achievement, in view of the fact that reading is a major cognitive skill. One contrast that has arisen in the study of reading aloud is the distinction between lexical and sublexical processes. Sublexical influences on word reading (e.g., reading words aloud) have been the topic of considerable research (e.g., the so called regularity effect; see Roberts, Rastle, Coltheart, & Besner, 2003, for a recent investigation that pits four different computational accounts against each other). Considerably less research has investigated lexical influences on novel word reading (e.g., reading nonwords aloud). Two lines of research have been pursued. One line concerns the effect of word neighbors (e.g., crane) on nonword reading aloud (e.g., clane) and has received little attention. The only three experimental papers on this topic with skilled readers of English are those by McCann and Besner (1987) and see also Weekes, 1997). A related line of investigation concerns how nonwords that sound like words (e.g., brane) are influenced by the base word (brain) in reading aloud has received considerably more attention.Here, we address the simple act of reading pseudohomophones (nonwords that sound like words-e.g., brane from brain) and their controls (e.g., frane) aloud. A number of well-replicated effects have been reported since the first investigation of pseudohomophone reading aloud in intact skilled readers. Their interpretation, however, has been associated with considerable controversy. In addition, recent research has reported several counterintuitive findings. At present, there is no broadly accepted account of all these effects. In the present article, we briefly review six critical findings in this literature and six different accounts of these findings, and discuss their limitations. We also report a new experiment that replicates Borowsky, Owen, and Masson's (2002) novel demonstration of a pseudohomophone disadvantage and the modulation of this pseudohomophone disadvantage and base word frequency effect by list order. We then provide a new account of these six findings and report a successful computational instantiation of this account. We conclude that processing is considerably more dynamic than is widely believed and suggest several lines of investigation that merit further consideration. THE FACTSCurrently, there are six effects that any successful account needs to explain. Three of these effects are well established in the literature (although not widely understood as such). These are (1) the pseudohomophone advantage and (2) the accompanying absence of a base word frequency effect when pseudohomophones and their controls There are pervasive lexical influences on the time that it takes to read aloud novel letter strings that sound like real words (e.g., brane from brain). However, the literature presents a complicated picture, given that the time taken to read aloud s...

show abstract

“…Reynolds and Besner (2005) reviewed six phenomena that are elicited when readers name pseudohomophones aloud as quickly and as accurately as they can. Briefly, pseudohomophones are named more quickly than control nonwords (a pseudohomophone advantage) when the two classes of stimuli are mixed together in a list (Borowsky, Owen, & Masson, 2002;Grainger, Spinelli, & Ferrand, 2000;Herdman, LeFevre, & Greenham, 1996;Marmurek & Kwantes, 1996;McCann & Besner, 1987;Taft & Russell, 1992) but more slowly than control nonwords (a pseudohomophone disadvantage) when the two types of items are presented in separate, pure lists (Borowsky et al, 2002;Reynolds & Besner, 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Controlling lexical contributions to the reading of pseudohomophones

Kwantes

Marmurek

2007

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pseudohomophones are nonword letter strings that, when pronounced, sound like words (e.g., brane sounds like brain). Several studies (e.g., Marmurek & Kwantes, 1996) have shown that a reader's performance when processing a pseudohomophone is influenced by properties of the letter string's base word. The nature of the influence depends on the task that a reader is asked to perform (e.g., naming or lexical decision) and the context in which the stimuli are presented (e.g., in pure lists of pseudohomophones or mixed with control nonwords that do not sound like words, such as frane).Reynolds and Besner (2005) reviewed six phenomena that are elicited when readers name pseudohomophones aloud as quickly and as accurately as they can. Briefly, pseudohomophones are named more quickly than control nonwords (a pseudohomophone advantage) when the two classes of stimuli are mixed together in a list (Borowsky, Owen, & Masson, 2002;Grainger, Spinelli, & Ferrand, 2000;Herdman, LeFevre, & Greenham, 1996;Marmurek & Kwantes, 1996;McCann & Besner, 1987;Taft & Russell, 1992) but more slowly than control nonwords (a pseudohomophone disadvantage) when the two types of items are presented in separate, pure lists (Borowsky et al., 2002;Reynolds & Besner, 2005).In the base-word frequency effect, pseudohomophones derived from high-frequency base words are named more quickly than those derived from low-frequency base words. Whereas the base-word frequency effect is strong for pure lists of pseudohomophones, the effect is attenuated or eliminated when the pseudohomophones are mixed with control nonwords (Marmurek & Kwantes, 1996;McCann & Besner, 1987).Both the pseudohomophone disadvantage and the base-word frequency effect found for pure lists are modulated by the order in which lists are presented. Specifically, the pseudohomophone disadvantage and the baseword frequency effect are attenuated when the pure list of pseudohomophones is read following the reading of a pure list of control nonwords (Borowsky et al., 2002;Reynolds & Besner, 2005).Reynolds and Besner (2005) proposed that the pattern exhibited by pseudohomophones in the naming task reflects differing degrees to which the reader uses general and specific lexical information as strategies to help build a pronunciation for the pseudohomophone. To support this hypothesis, Reynolds and Besner simulated the two strategies in the dual route cascaded (DRC) model of word identification (Coltheart, Rastle, Perry, Langdon, & Ziegler, 2001). The DRC model postulates that the pronunciation of a letter string is constructed using two routes, referred to as the lexical and the nonlexical routes. The architecture of the lexical route includes two lexicons: an orthographic lexicon containing the spellings of all words known to the system, and a phonological lexicon containing their pronunciations.When a letter string is presented to the model, its characters activate letter units that, in turn, activate entries in the orthographic lexicon. Activation from the orthographic lexicon spreads to entri...

show abstract

Pseudohomophone Naming and the Word Frequency Effect

Cited by 34 publications

References 25 publications

Diagnostics of phonological lexical processing: Pseudohomophone naming advantages, disadvantages, and base-word frequency effects

Diagnostics of phonological lexical processing: Pseudohomophone naming advantages, disadvantages, and base-word frequency effects

Basic processes in reading: A critical review of pseudohomophone effects in reading aloud and a new computational account

Controlling lexical contributions to the reading of pseudohomophones

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About