Basic processes in reading: Can functional phonological recoding be blocked?

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 60, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 148-158

  Ferguson, Roy ^a   Besner, Derek ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHONETICS; PHYSIOLOGY; REACTION TIME; READING; SEMANTICS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PHONETICS; REACTION TIME; READING; SEMANTICS;

EID: 33750603106     PISSN: 11961961     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/cjep2006014     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Besner, D., Dennis, I., & Davelaar, E. (1985). Reading without phonology.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37A, 477-491.
2. Besner, D., Stolz, J., & Holcomb, P. (2005), On the persisting myth of automatic semantic activation in visual word recognition: What N400 doesn't measure, Unpublished manuscript.
3. Besson, M., Kutas, M., & Van Petten, C. (1992). An eventrelated potential (ERP) analysis of semantic congruity and repetition effects in sentences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 4, 132-149.
4. Borowsky, R., & Besner, D. (1993). Visual word recognition: A multistage activation model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 813-840.
5. Brysbaert, M. (2001). Prelexical phonological coding of visual words in Dutch: Automatic after all. Memory & Cognition, 29, 765-773.
6. Brysbaert, M. (2003). Bilingual visual word recognition. In S. Kinoshita & S. J. Lupker (Eds.), Masked priming: The state of the art (pp. 323-344). Hove and New York: Psychology Press.
7. Carello, C., Turvey, M. T., & Lukatela, G. (1992). Can theories of word recognition remain stubbornly nonphonological? In R. Frost & L. Katz (Eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning (pp. 211-226). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
8. Coltheart, M., & Coltheart, V. (1997). Reading comprehension is not exclusively reliant upon phonological representation. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 167-175.
9. Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud, Psychological Review, 108, 204-256.
10. Deacon, D., Hewitt, S., Yang, C., & Nagata, M. (2000). Event-related indices of semantic priming using masked and unmasked words: Evidence that the N400 does not reflect a post-lexical process.Cognitive Brain Research, 9, 137-146.
11. Evett, L. J., & Humphreys, G. W. (1981). The use of abstract graphemic information in lexical access. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 33A, 355-350.
12. Friedrich, F. J., Henik, A., & Tzelgov, J. (1991). Automatic processes in lexical access and spreading activation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 792-806.
13. Frost, R. (1998).Toward a strong phonological theory of visual word recognition: True issues and false trails. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 71-99.
14. Frost, R. (2003). The robustness of phonological effects in fast priming. In S. Kinoshita & S. J. Lupker (Eds.) Masked priming: The state of the art (pp. 173-192). Hove and New York: Psychology Press.
15. Heil, M., Rolke, B., & Pecchinenda, A. (2004). Automatic semantic activation is no myth: Semantic context effects on the N400 in the letter-search task in the absence of response time effects. Psychological Science, 15, 852-857.
16. Holcomb, P. J. (1993). Semantic priming and stimulus degradation: Implications for the role of N400 in language processing, Psychophysiology, 30, 47-61.
17. Kahan, T. A., Sellinger, J. J., & Broman-Fulks, J. (in press). Associative and phonological priming effects following letter search on the prime. American Journal of Psychology.
18. Kiefer, M., & Spitzer, M. (2000). Time course of conscious and unconscious semantic brain activation. Neuroreport: For Rapid Communication of Neuroscience Research, 11, 2401-2407.
19. Lukatela, G., & Turvey, M. T. (1998). Reading in two alphabets. American Psychologist, 53, 1057-1072.
20. Mari-Beffa, P., Valdes, B., Cullen, D. J. D., Catena, A., & Houghton, G. (2005). ERP analysis of task effects on semantic processing from words. Cognitive Brain Research, 23, 293-305.
21. McClelland, J. L. (1987). The case for interactionism in language processing. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 3-35). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Meyer, D. E., Schvaneveldt, R. W., & Ruddy, M. G. (1975). Loci of contextual effects on visual word recognition. In P. M. Rabbitt & S. Dornic (Eds.), Attention and performance V(pp. 98-118). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
23. Neely, J. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories, In D. Besner & G. Humphreys (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 264-336). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
24. Neely, J. H., & Kahan, T. A. (2001). Is semantic activation automatic? A critical re- evaluation. In H. L. Roediger, J. S. Nairne, I. Neath, & A. M. Surprenant (Eds.), The nature of remembering: Essays in honor of Robert G. Crowder. (pp. 69-93). Washington: American Psychological Association.
25. Perfetti, C. A., & Bell, L. C. (1991). Phonemic activation during the first 40 ms of word identification: Evidence from backward masking and masked priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 473-485.
26. Roberts, M. A., Rastle, K., Coltheart, M., & Besner, D. (2003). When parallel processing in visual word recognition is not enough: New evidence from naming. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 405-414.
27. Rugg, M. D. (1990). Event-related brain potentials dissociate repetition effects of high- and low-frequency words. Memory & Cognition, 18, 367-379.
28. Schneider, W. (1988). Micro Experimental Laboratory: An integrated system for IBM-PC compatibles. Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation and Computers, 20, 206-217.
29. Schneider, W. (1990). MEL user's guide: Computer techniques for real time experiments. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychololgy Software Tools.
30. Seidenberg, M. S. (1985). The time course of phonological code activation in two writing systems. Cognition, 19, 1-30.
31. Smith, M. C., Theodor, L., & Franklin, P. E. (1983). The relationship between contextual facilitation and depth of processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 697-712.
32. Schneider, W. (1988). Micro Experimental Laboratory: An integrated system for IBM- PC compatibles, Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation and Computers, 20, 206-217.
33. Schneider, W. (1990). MEL user's guide: Computer techniques for real time experiments. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.
34. Stolz, J. A., & Besner, D. (1996). The role of set in visual word recognition: Activation and activation blocking as nonautomatic processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1166-1177.
35. Stolz, J. A., & Besner, D. (1998). Levels of representation in visual word recognition: A dissociation between morphological and semantic processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1642-1655.
36. Van Orden, G. C., Pennington, B. F., & Stone, G. O. (1990). Word identification in reading and the promise of subsymbolic psycholinguistics. Psychological Review, 97, 488-522.
37. Van Orden, G. C., Stone, G. O., Garlington, K. L., Markson, L. R., Pinnt, G. S., Simonfy, C. M., et al. (1992). "Assembled" phonology and reading: A case study in how theoretical perspective shapes empirical investigation. In R. Frost & L. Katz (Eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning (pp. 85-118). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
38. Van Seist, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (1994). A solution to the effect of sample size on outlier elimination. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A, 631-650.
39. Visser, T. A. W., & Besner, D. (2001). On the dominance of whole-word knowledge in reading aloud. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 560-567.
40. Ziegler, J. C., Van Orden, G. C., & Jacobs, A. M. (1997). Phonology can help or hurt the perception of print. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 845-860.