Do null phonemic masking effects reflect strategic control of phonology?

Reading and Writing

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 349-376

  Berent, Iris ^a   Van Orden, Guy C ^b  

^a FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Homophones; Masking; Phonology; Reading

Indexed keywords

EID: 3943073058     PISSN: 09224777     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1023671128749     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Azuma, T. & Van Orden, G.C. (1997). Why SAFE is better than FAST: The relatedness of a word's meanings affects lexical decision times, Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 484-504.
2. Baron, J. (1973). Phonemic stage not necessary for reading, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25, 241-246.
3. Bower, T.G. (1970). Reading by eye. Phonology and reading. In H. Levin & J.O. Williams (Eds.), Basic studies in reading (pp. 134-146). New-York: Basic Books.
4. Berent, I. (1997). Phonological effects in the lexical decision task: Regularity effects are not necessary evidence for assembly. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 1727-1742.
5. Berent, I. & Frost, R. (1997). The inhibition of polygraphic consonants in spelling Hebrew: Evidence for a recurrent assembly of spelling and phonology in visual word recognition. In C. Perfetti, M. Fayol, and L. Rieben (Eds.), Learning to spell. Research, theory and practice across languages (pp. 195-219). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
6. Berent, I. & Perfetti, C.A. (1995). A rose is a REEZ: The two cycles model of phonology assembly in reading English, Psychological Review, 102, 146-184.
7. Berent, I. & Van Orden, G.C. (2000). Homophone dominance modulates the phonemic-masking effect, Scientific Studies of Reading, 42, 133-167.
8. Bosman, A. & DeGroot, A.M.B. (1996). Phonological mediation is fundamental to reading: Evidence from beginning readers, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 715-744.
9. 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.
10. Coltheart, M. (1978). Lexical access in simple reading tasks. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Strategies of information processing (pp. 151-216). London: Academic Press.
11. Ferrand, L. & Grainger, J. (1996). List context effects on masked phonological priming in the lexical decision task, Psychonomics Bulletin and Review, 3, 515-519.
12. Gibbs, P. & Van Orden, G.C. (1998). Pathway selection's utility for control of word recognition, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1162-1187.
13. Kawamoto, A. (1993). Nonlinear dynamics in the resolution of lexical ambiguity: A parallel distributed processing account, Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 474-516.
14. Lukatela, G., Savić, M., Urosević, Z. & Turvey, M.T. (1997). Phonological ambiguity impairs identity priming in naming and lexical decision, Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 360-381.
15. Lukatela, G. & Turvey, M.T. (1993). Similar attentional, frequency and associative effects for pseudohomophones and words, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 166-178.
16. Michaels, C.F. & Turvey, M.T. (1979). Central sources of visual masking: Indexing structures supporting seeing at a single, brief glance, Psychological Research (Psychologische Forschung), 4, 1-61.
17. Perfetti, C.A. & Bell, L. (1991). Phonemic activation during the first 40 ms. of word identifi-cation: Evidence from backward masking and priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 473-485.
18. Perfetti, C.A. & Zhang, S. (1994). Semantic without phonology? Comparisons of English and Chinese reading. In Q. Jing, H. Zhang & D. Peng (Eds.), Information processing of Chinese language (pp. 12-25). Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press.
19. Perfetti. C.A., Zhang, S. & Berent, I. (1992). Reading in English and Chinese: Evidence for a "universal" phonological principle. In R. Frost & L. Katz (Eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology and meaning (pp. 227-248). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
20. Peter, M. & Turvey, M. (1994). Phonological codes are early sources of constraint on visual semantic categorization, Perception and Psychophysics, 55, 24-33.
21. Seidenberg, M.S. (1985). The time course of phonological code activation in two writing systems. Cognition, 19, 1-30.
22. Seidenberg, M.S., Waters, G.S., Barnes, M.A. & Tanenhaus, M.K. (1984). When does irregular spelling or pronunciation influence word recognition? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 383-404.
23. Stone, G.O. & Van Orden, G.C. (1993). Strategic control of processing in word recognition, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 744-774.
24. Stone, G.O., Vanhoy, M. & Van Orden, G.C. (1997). Perception is a two-way street: Feed-forward and feedback phonology in visual word recognition, Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 337-359.
25. Tan, L. & Perfetti, C. (1996). Semantic and phonological inhibition in the early stages of English word identification. A poster presented at the 37th annual meeting of the Psychonomics society. Chicago, Illinois.
26. Tzelgov, J. (1997). Specifying the relations between automaticity and consciousness: A theoretical note, Consciousness and Cognition, 6, 441-451.
27. Van Orden, G.C. (1987). A ROWS is a ROSE: Spelling, sound and reading, Memory and Cognition, 15, 181-190.
28. 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 and Performance, 20, 1269-1291.
29. 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, and Cognition, 14, 371-386.
30. 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.
31. Van Orden, G.C., Pennington, B & Stone, G. (2001). What do double dissociations prove? Inductive methods and theory in psychology, Cognitive Science, 25, 111-172.
32. Verstaen, A., Humphreys, G., Olson, A. & D'Ydewalle, G. (1995). Are phonemic effects in backward masking evidence for automatic prelexical phonemic activation in visual word recognition? Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 335-356.
33. Winer, B. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design, 2nd ed. New-York: McGraw-Hill.
34. Ziegler, J.C. & Jacobs, A.M. (1995). Phonological information provides early sources of constraint in the processing of letter strings, Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 567-593.
35. Ziegler, J.C., Montant, M. & Jacobs, A.M. (1997a). The feedback consistency effect in French, Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 533-554.
36. Ziegler, J.C., Van Orden, G.C. & Jacobs, A.M. (1997b). Phonology can help or hurt the perception of print, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 845-860.