Semantic, Orthographic, and Phonetic Factors in Word Recognition

Becker, Curtis A.; Schvaneveldt, Roger W.; Gomez, L.H.

doi:10.1037/e665992011-075

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The verification model was introduced to compensate for this weakness of the logogen model (Becker, 1976;Becker & Killion, 1977;Becker, Schvaneveldt, & Gomez, 1973;Paap, Newsome, McDonald, & Schvaneveldt, 1982;Schvaneveldt, Meyer, & Becker, 1976). To deal with the two stages at which learned factors can operate, the verification model assumed that the feature analysis and feature increment process is an indeterminant one: a process that results in numerous word detectors exceeding criterion.…”

Section: Verification By Serial Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural dynamics of word recognition and recall: Attentional priming, learning, and resonance.

Grossberg¹,

Stone²

1986

Psychological Review

311

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data and models about recognition and recall of words and nonwords are unified using a real-time network processing theory. Lexical decision and word frequency effect data are analyzed in terms of theoretical concepts that have unified data about development of circular reactions, imitation of novel sounds, the matching of phonetic to articulatory requirements, serial and paired associate verbal learning, free recall, unitization, categorical perception, selective adaptation, auditory contrast, and word superiority effects. The theory, called adaptive resonance theory, arose from an analysis of how a language system self-organizes in real time in response to its complex input environment. Such an approach emphasizes the moment-by-moment dynamical interactions that control language development, learning, and stability. Properties of language performance emerge from an analysis of the system constraints that govern stable language learning. Concepts such as logogens, verification, automatic activation, interactive activation, limited-capacity processing, conscious attention, serial search, processing stages, speed-accuracy trade-off, situational frequency, familiarity, and encoding specificity are revised and developed using this analysis. Concepts such as adaptive resonance, resonant equilibration of short-term memory, bottom-up adaptive filtering, top-down adaptive template matching, competitive masking field, unitized list representation, temporal order information over item representations, attentional priming, attentional gain control, and list-item error trade-off are applied. Role of Learning in Word RecognitionAn explosive outpouring of data during the past two decades has documented many aspects of how humans process language in response to visual and auditory cues. With the data have arisen a number of conceptual frameworks and models aimed at integrating data from individual experimental paradigms and suggesting new experiments within these paradigms. A complex patchwork of experiments and models has thus far organized the data into a loose confederation of relatively isolated data domains. The time is ripe for a synthesis.A parallel line of theoretical development over the past two decades has begun to achieve such a synthesis (

show abstract

Section: Verification By Serial Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural dynamics of word recognition and recall: Attentional priming, learning, and resonance.

Grossberg¹,

Stone²

1986

Psychological Review

311

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The model to be developed here, the verification model, is based on the assumption that processing at a level of sensory features is insufficient to afford a definitive identification for a stimulus word. 1 Rather, sensory-feature information is used to constrain a more analytic verification process. In the verification model, two processes are postulated: feature extraction and verification ; and two information stores are assumed : sensory and lexical.…”

Section: Outline Of a Model For Visual Word Recognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Allocation of attention during visual word recognition.

Becker

1976

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

Self Cite

255

267

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A dual-task paradigm was used to assess attentional processing demands during visual word recognition. By manipulating the difficulty of each task, it is argued that the procedure estimates the attention demands of the memory-access component of word recognition. Specifically, the the complexity of the secondary task was varied from a simple reaction time task to a choice reaction time task, and the difficulty of a lexical decision (word vs. nonword) primary task was varied by manipulating word frequency. A comparison of the effect of secondary task complexity across levels of word frequency showed that the difference between the two secondary tasks was larger for low-frequency words than for high-frequency words. This result, supported by other characteristics of the data, suggests that the memory-access processing in one type of word recognition task does demand attention.

show abstract

“…For the rhyming task subjects were told to respond "same" if the two words on the stimulus cards rhymed and "different" if they did not rhyme, by pressing the appropriate microswitch. For the semantic task subjects were instructed to respond "same" (1) if both words referred to animate entities or their aspects or (2) if both words referred to inanimate entities or their aspects. Otherwise, they were to respond "different."…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Direct visual access in reading for meaning

Green

Shallice

1976

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments examined whether phonological recoding is an obligatory stage in reading for meaning or whether direct access to a word's semantic representation is the general rule. The first study demonstrated that the time to make a semantic decision about a pair of words was much more delayed by misspelling than was the time to make a phonological one. The second study investigated the effect of varying the syllabic length of a word on reaction time in a category decision task. While reaction time varied with the semantic difficulty of the category decision, it generally proved invariant with respect to syllabic length. It is argued that reading for meaning generally uses a direct route from visual form to semantic representation.There has been much discussion in recent years on the conditions under which reading for meaning depends upon phonological recoding (see Bradshaw, 1975). A number of workers have claimed that phonological recoding is the standard way of reading (Rubenstein, Lewis, & Rubenstein, 1971;Rubenstein, Richter, & Kay, 1975) or, at least, that it is widely used (Meyer, Schvaneveldt, & Ruddy, 1974).One of the strongest arguments against these views is the difficulty of reading words which have been misspelled in such a way that their correct pronunciation is unambiguously preserved (Bower, 1970). However, Meyer et al. (I 974) argued that the slowness in reading such words could arise prior to phonological recoding due to difficulties either in "visual preprocessing" or in the transformation of visual information into phonological form. An experiment by Baron (I973) avoided both of these difficulties. He used words (e.g., "not") in a context that was only meaningful for their homophones (e.g., "knot"), as in "tie the not." If phonological recoding is obligatory, it should be more difficult to decide that such phrases are "nonsense." Subjects were in fact no slower in dealing with such phrases than with control nonhomophonic phrases. However, they did make a significantly greater number of errors, so the results are inconclusive. EXPERIMENT 1We attempted to make a direct test of the two Meyer et al. hypotheses. If either is true, then, given that phonological recoding is the standard way by whichWe would like to thank Vanessa Moore for her assistance in conducting the experiments, and the Psychology Department, University College London, for providing facilities and assistance.words are read, all tasks which involve such recoding should be equally slowed by the use of misspelled words. In Experiment 1 we compared the use of misspelled words in a semantic task, which requires reading for meaning, with their use in a rhyming task. MethodSubjects. The subjects were 32 first-year undergraduate students from the Psychology Department, University College London. They were unpaid volunteers, tested individually.Design. Subjects were assigned upon appearance in the laboratory to one of the four independent groups which represented the four combinations of the two variables of task (rhyming vs. semanti...

show abstract

Semantic, Orthographic, and Phonetic Factors in Word Recognition

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Neural dynamics of word recognition and recall: Attentional priming, learning, and resonance.

Neural dynamics of word recognition and recall: Attentional priming, learning, and resonance.

Allocation of attention during visual word recognition.

Direct visual access in reading for meaning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About