The acronym superiority effect

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 14, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 1158-1163

  Laszlo, Sarah ^a   Federmeier, Kara D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 38149015453     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03193106     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. BARON, J., & THURSTON, I. (1973). An analysis of the word-superiority effect. Cognitive Psychology, 4,207-228.
2. CARR, T. H., DAVIDSON, B. J., & HAWKINS, H. J. (1978). Perceptual flexibility in word recognition: Strategies affect orthographic computation but not lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 4,674-690.
3. 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.
4. DEACON, D., DYNOWSKA, A., RITTER, W., & GROSE-FIFER, J. (2004). Repetition and semantic priming of nonwords: Implications for theories of N400 and word recognition. Psychophysiology, 41,60-74.
5. DENNIS, S. (1995). The Sydney Morning Herald word database. Retrieved October 2004 from www2.psy.uq.edu.au/CogPsych/Noetica/ OpenForumIssue4/SMH.html.
6. GÜNTHER, H., GFROERER, S., & WEIS, L. (1984). Inflection, fire-quency, and the word superiority effect. Psychological Research, 46, 261-281.
7. HARM, M. W., & SEIDENBERG, M. S. (2004). Computing the meanings of words in reading: Cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes. Psychological Review, 111, 662-720.
8. HENDERSON, L. (1974). A word superiority effect without orthographic assistance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 26, 301-311.
9. HOLCOMB, P. J., GRAINGER, J., & O'ROURKE, T. (2002). An electrophysiological study of the effects of orthographic neighborhood size on printed word perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 938-950.
10. JOBARD, G., CRIVELLO, F., & TZOURIO MAZOYER, N. (2003). Evaluation of the dual route theory of reading: A metanalysis of 35 neuroimaging studies. Neurolmage, 20,693-712.
11. KUČERA, H., &FRANCIS, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of presentday American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
12. LASZLO, S., & FEDERMEIER, K. D. (2007). Better the DVL you know: Acronyms reveal the contribution of familiarity to single word reading. Psychological Science, 18, 122-126.
13. MCCLELLAND, J. L., & RUMELHART, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part I. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88,375-407.
14. NOICE, H., & HOCK, H. S. (1987). A word superiority effect with nonorthographic acronyms: Testing for unitized visual codes. Perception & Psychophysics, 42,485-490.
15. PRINZMETAL, W., & MILLIS-WRIGHT, M. (1984). Cognitive and linguistic factors affect visual feature integration. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 305-340.
16. REICHER, G. M. (1969). Perceptual recognition as a function of meaningfulness of stimulus material. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 274-280.
17. RUMELHART, D. E., & MCCLELLAND, J. L. (1982). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 2. The contextual enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of the model. Psychological Review, 89, 60-94.