SIHGT and SUNOD: The role of orthography and phonology in the perception of transposed letter anagrams

Are onsets and codas important in processing letter position? A comparison of TL effects in English and Korean

“…Consistent with other studies in English (e.g., Andrews, 1996;Chambers, 1979;Frankish & Turner, 2007;O'Connor & Forster, 1981;Perea & Lupker, 2004), it is shown that lexical decision responses to a nonword are disrupted when transposition of two of its consonants creates a real word. Such interference is greatest when neither of the two consonants are the first nor last letter of the string, with the coda-onset swap condition producing over 40% errors.…”

“…Although Frankish and Turner (2007) have claimed that TL effects are influenced by phonological factors, Perea and Carreiras (2008) failed to find any phonologically based modulation of effects when TL nonwords were used to prime their basewords. That is, even when the prime changed phonemically as a result of transposition (e.g., the c of radical changing from /k/ to /s/ in racidal), lexical decision responses to the baseword were still facilitated.…”

“…This has been amply demonstrated in lexical decision experiments where such ''transposed letter" (TL) nonwords are erroneously classified as words more often than nonTL nonwords (e.g., nagbin) and/or have longer response times when being correctly classified as nonwords (e.g., Andrews, 1996;Chambers, 1979;Frankish & Turner, 2007;O'Connor & Forster, 1981;Perea & Lupker, 2004;Perea, Rosa, & Gómez, 2005). Such a finding has implications for the issue of how information about letter position is encoded during reading because it suggests that the exact position of a letter in the middle of a presented letter-string is not very important when that letter-string is encoded.…”

Transposition effects in reading Japanese Kana: Are they orthographic in nature?

“…In a lexical decision task, Frankish and Turner (2007) found that (briefly presented) nonwords created by swapping two letters were more wordlike (i.e., they produced more "word" responses) when these nonwords were unpronounceable (sotrm; i.e., via an illegal bigram) than when they were pronounceable (strom; via a legal bigram; see also Rumelhart, 1977, for a similar finding). Likewise, the magnitude of masked priming effects is greater when the transposed-letter primes form an illegal letter combination (e.g., sotrm-STORM) string than when they form a legal letter combination (e.g., strom-STORM; see Frankish & Barnes, 2008;Perea & Carreiras, 2008).…”

Revisiting letter transpositions within and across morphemic boundaries

“…As in previous research (e.g., Sánchez-Gutiérrez & Rastle, 2013), we restricted the criteria for replacements, minimizing the variability in height (i.e., trying to preserve the amount of vertical space occupied by each transposed letter), and replacing letters as a function of their consonantvowel status. None of the letter transpositions or replacements involved two vowels (see Perea & Acha, 2009, for a demonstration of weaker TL effects for vowel combinations than for manipulations involving consonants) or the initial or final letters of the strings, and all of the bigrams manipulated resulted in existing letter combinations in Spanish (see Frankish & Turner, 2007). Special attention was paid to the frequencies of the manipulated bigrams, which were matched across TL and RL conditions in a pairwise manner: TLbetween = 2,210.63, RL-between = 2,250.59, paired samples t(419) = -1.11, p = .27; TL-within = 1,639.22, RL-within = 1,625.74, paired samples t(419) = 0.32, p = .75 (see Barnes, 2008, and, for evidence regarding the importance of matching the different conditions in their bigram frequencies).…”