Raeding Wrods With Jubmled Lettres

Rayner, Keith; White, Sarah J.; Johnson, Rebecca L.; Liversedge, Simon Paul

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01684.x

Cited by 211 publications

(229 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

199

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding is consistent with the results obtained by Bowers et al (2005a) and Davis and Taft (2005), and adds to other evidence that the exterior letters of a word play a particularly important role in visual word identification (e.g., Jordan, 1990;Perea, 1998;Rayner, White, Johnson, & Liversedge, 2006). It seems likely that this is related to the fact that the position of the Figure 1.…”

Section: Why Are An and Dn Interference Effects Not Observed For Finasupporting

confidence: 91%

Re(de)fining the orthographic neighborhood: The role of addition and deletion neighbors in lexical decision and reading.

Davis¹,

Perea²,

Acha³

2009

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The influence of addition and deletion neighbors on visual word identification was investigated in four experiments. Experiments 1 and 2 used Spanish stimuli. In Experiment 1, lexical decision latencies were slower and less accurate for words and nonwords with higher-frequency deletion neighbors (e.g., jugar in juzgar), relative to control stimuli. Experiment 2 showed a similar interference effect for words and nonwords with higher-frequency addition neighbors (e.g., conejo, which has the addition neighbor consejo), relative to control stimuli. Experiment 3 replicated this addition neighbor interference effect in a lexical decision experiment with English stimuli. Across all three experiments, interference effects were always evident for addition/deletion neighbors with word-outer overlap, usually present for those with word-initial overlap, but never present for those with word-final overlap. Experiment 4 replicated the addition/deletion neighbor inhibitory effects in a Spanish sentence reading task in which the participants' eye movements were monitored. These findings suggest that conventional orthographic neighborhood metrics should be redefined. In addition to its methodological implications, this conclusion has significant theoretical implications for input coding schemes and the mechanisms underlying word recognition. Keywords: visual word recognition, lexical inhibition, neighborhood effects, orthographic input coding, SOLAR modelIn the past decade, cracking the orthographic code has become a key question for researchers in visual word recognition and reading (see Grainger, 2008, for a recent review). The origins of this quest can be traced 3 decades ago, when Coltheart, Davelaar, Jonasson, and Besner (1977) reported an experiment that has come to be considered a classic study in the field of visual word identification. To investigate lexical access procedures, Coltheart and colleagues manipulated an orthographic similarity metric that they labeled "N". The N metric had previously been suggested by Landauer and Streeter (1973) as a measure of the number of close "neighbors" of a stimulus, and was computed by counting the number of words that can be created by changing a single letter of the stimulus. For example, N ϭ 10 for the word river (which has an orthographic neighborhood that includes the words diver, liver, rover, rider, and rivet), whereas N ϭ 1 for the word drive, as only a single word (drove) can be formed by substituting a single letter. In a lexical decision task, Coltheart et al. (1977) found that N had no effect on the latency of "Yes" responses, but that "No" responses were significantly slower to large-N nonwords than to small-N nonwords. This was interpreted as evidence against a serial search model and in favor of a parallel access model like Morton's (1970) logogen model. It was argued that fixating a written word leads to the automatic activation of its neighbors, and that this lexical activation made it harder to reject large-N nonwords than small-N nonwords.In the years since Colth...

show abstract

Section: Why Are An and Dn Interference Effects Not Observed For Finasupporting

confidence: 91%

Re(de)fining the orthographic neighborhood: The role of addition and deletion neighbors in lexical decision and reading.

Davis¹,

Perea²,

Acha³

2009

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These mainly involve the identity and position of transposed letters. We therefore matched the letter transposition criteria in the two languages as follows: Given the relative importance of initial and final letters (e.g., Rayner et al, 2006), in both languages, transpositions only involved middle letters. Due to the difference in transposing vowels in comparison with consonants (Perea & Lupker, 2004), in both languages only consonants were transposed.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cambridge University versus Hebrew University: The impact of letter transposition on reading English and Hebrew

Velan

Frost

2007

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…That is, readers do confuse anagrams created by transposing letters (e.g., jugde) with their base words (i.e., judge) to a greater degree than letter strings involving replacement of the transposed letters (e.g., jupte; Chambers, 1979;O'Connor & Forster, 1981;Perea & Lupker, 2003a, 2003b, 2004 as well as confusing transposed-letter anagram words like trial and trail (Andrews, 1996). At the same time, however, as shown by the now famous "Cambridge e-mail", readers have little trouble reading when the letter strings they are reading contain sets of transposed letters (e.g., "eervy letetr by iesltf" can be easily interpreted as "every letter by itself"; see Rayner, White, Johnson, & Liversedge, 2006, for additional evidence from experiments in which eye movements were monitored during sentence reading).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-cognate translation priming effects in the same–different task: evidence for the impact of “higher level” information

Lupker

Perea

Nakayama

2015

Language, Cognition and Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Norris and colleagues have proposed that priming effects observed in the masked prime same-different task are based solely on pre-lexical orthographic information. This proposal was evaluated by examining translation priming effects from non-cognate translation equivalents using both Spanish-English and Japanese-English bilinguals in the same-different task. Although no priming was observed for Spanish-English bilinguals, who also produced very little translation priming in a lexical decision task, significant priming was observed for Japanese-English bilinguals. These results indicate that, although most of the priming in the same-different task has an orthographic basis, other types of priming effects can emerge. Therefore, while the masked prime same-different task provides a good way of investigating the nature of orthographic coding, it, like the sandwich priming technique, can also be influenced by higher level information.

show abstract

Raeding Wrods With Jubmled Lettres

Cited by 211 publications

References 3 publications

Re(de)fining the orthographic neighborhood: The role of addition and deletion neighbors in lexical decision and reading.

Re(de)fining the orthographic neighborhood: The role of addition and deletion neighbors in lexical decision and reading.

Cambridge University versus Hebrew University: The impact of letter transposition on reading English and Hebrew

Non-cognate translation priming effects in the same–different task: evidence for the impact of “higher level” information

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About