Semantic and phonological influences on the processing of words and pseudohomophones

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 31, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 856-866

  Yates, Mark ^a,b   Locker Jr , Lawrence ^a   Simpson, Greg B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

^b 426 Fraser Hall ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION THEORY; ERROR; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LINGUISTICS; MODEL; NORMAL HUMAN; PHONETICS; RANDOMIZATION; SEMANTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISUAL STIMULATION; WORD RECOGNITION;

EID: 0242267558     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03196440     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. BAAYEN, R. H., PIEPENBROCK, R., & GULIKERS, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.
2. BERENT, I. (1997). Phonological priming in the lexical decision task regularity effects are not necessary evidence for assembly. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 23, 1727-1742.
3. BESNER, D., & DAVELAAR, E. (1983). Suedohomofoan effects in visual word recognition: Evidence for phonological processing. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 37, 300-305.
4. BOROWSKY, R., & MASSON, M. E. J. (1996). Semantic ambiguity effects in word identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 63-85.
5. BOROWSKY, R., OWEN, W. J., & MASSON, M. E. J. (2002) Diagnostics of phonological lexical processing: Pseudohomophone naming advantages, disadvantages, and base-word frequency effects. Memory & Cognition, 30, 969-987.
6. BUCHANAN, L., WESTBURY, C., & BURGESS, C. (2001). Characterizing semantic space: Neighborhood effects in word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 531-544.
7. CARROLL, J. B., DAVIES, P., & RICHMAN, B. (1971). American Heritage word frequency book. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
8. COLTHEART, M., DAVELAAR, E., JONASSON, J., & BESNER, D. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp. 535-555). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. FERA, P., & BESNER, D. (1992). The process of lexical decision: More words about a parallel distributed processing model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 18, 749-764.
10. GIBBS, P., & VAN ORDEN, G. C. (1998). Pathway selection's utility for control of word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 1162-1187.
11. GOSWAMI, U., ZIEGLER, J. C., DALTON, L., & SCHNEIDER, W. (2001). Pseudohomophone effects and phonological recoding procedures in reading development in English and German. Journal of Memory & Language, 45, 648-664.
12. JAMES, C. T. (1975). The role of semantic information in lexical decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 1, 130-136.
13. KUČERA, H., & FRANCIS, N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
14. LOCKER, L., JR., SIMPSON, G. B., & YATES, M. (2003). Semantic neighborhood effects on the recognition of ambiguous words. Memory & Cognition, 31, 505-515.
15. MASSARO, D. W., TAYLOR, G. A., VENEZKY, R. L., JASTRZEMBSKI, J. E., & LUCAS, P. A. (1980). Letter and word perception: The role of orthographic structure and visual processing in reading. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
16. MAYALL, K., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (1996). Case mixing and the task-sensitive disruption of lexical processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 278-294.
17. MCCANN, R. S., BESNER, D., & DAVELAAR, E. (1988). Word recognition and identification: Do word-frequency effects reflect lexical access? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 14, 693-706.
18. MRC PSYCHOLINGUISTIC DATABASE (2000). MRC psycholinguistic data-base: Machine usable dictionary. Version 2.00. Available at http://www.psy.uwa.edu.au/MRCDataBase/uwa_mrc.htm.
19. NELSON, D. L., BENNETT, D. J., GEE, N. R., & SCHREIBER, T. A. (1993). Implicit memory: Effects of network size and interconnectivity on cued recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory. & Cognition, 19, 747-764.
20. NELSON, D. L., SCHREIBER, T. A., & McEvoy, C. L. (1992). Processing implicit and explicit representations. Psychological Review, 99, 322-348.
21. PEXMAN, P. M., & LUPKER, S. J. (1999). Ambiguity and visual word recognition: Can feedback explain both homophone and polysemy effects? Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 323-334.
22. PLAUT, D. C. (1997). Structure and function in the lexical system: Insights from distributed models of word reading and lexical decision. Language & Cognitive Processes, 12, 765-805.
23. PRING, L. (1981). Phonological codes and functional spelling units: Reality and implications. Perception & Psychophysics, 30, 573-578.
24. PUGH, K. R., REXER, K., & KATZ, L. (1994). Evidence of flexible coding in visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 807-825.
25. RUBENSTEIN, H., LEWIS, S. S., & RUBENSTEIN, M. A. (1971). Evidence for phonemic recoding in visual word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 10, 645-657.
26. SCHNEIDER, W. (1988). Micro Experimental Laboratory: An integrated system for IBM PC compatibles. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 20, 206-217.
27. SCHREIBER, T. A., & CARTER, K. (in press). The activation of preexisting associations in an episodic memory task. Memory.
28. SEIDENBERG, M. S., & MCCLELLAND, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523-568.
29. SEIDENBERG, M. S., PETERSEN, A., MACDONALD, M. C., & PLAUT, D. C. (1996). Pseudohomophone effects and models of word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 48-62.
30. SPSS FOR WINDOWS (Release 11.5.0) [Computer Software] (2002). Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.
31. STONE, G. O., & VAN ORDEN, G. C. (1993). Strategic control of processing in word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 19, 744-774.
32. UNDERWOOD, G., ROBERTS, M., & THOMASON, H. (1988). Strategical invariance in lexical access: The reappearance of the pseudohomophone effect. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 42, 24-34.
33. VANHOY, M., & VAN ORDEN, G. C. (2001). Pseudohomophones and word recognition. Memory & Cognition, 29, 522-529.
34. VAN ORDEN, G. C. (1987). A ROWS is a ROSE: Spelling, sound, and reading. Memory & Cognition, 15, 181-198.
35. VAN ORDEN, G. C., & GOLDINGER, S. D. (1994). Interdependence of form and function in cognitive systems explains perception of printed words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 1269-1291.
36. VAN ORDEN, G. C., JOHNSTON, J. C., & HALE, B. L. (1988). Word identification in reading proceeds from spelling to sound to meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 14, 371-386.
37. ZIEGLER, J. C., JACOBS, A. M., & KLÜPPEL, D. (2001). Pseudohomophone effects in lexical decision: Still a challenge for current word recognition models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27, 547-559.