Semantic predictability eliminates the transposed-letter effect

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 40, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 628-641

  Luke, Steven G ^a   Christianson, Kiel ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

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

Author keywords

Lexical processing; Masked priming; Predictability; Prediction; Psycholinguistics; Reading; Transposed letter priming; Visual word recognition

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; METHODOLOGY; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHYSIOLOGY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PSYCHOLOGIC TEST; READING; RECOGNITION; SEMANTICS;

ADULT; HUMANS; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; READING; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SEMANTICS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84864490487     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: 15325946     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13421-011-0170-4     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Aaronson, D., & Ferres, S. (1984). The word-by-word reading paradigm: An experimental and theoretical approach. In D. E. Kieras & M. A. Just (Eds.), New methods in reading comprehension research (pp. 29-68). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Aaronson, D., & Scarborough, H. S. (1976). Performance theories for sentence coding: Some quantitative evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 2, 56-70. doi: 10. 1037/0096-1523. 2. 1. 56.
3. Acha, J., & Perea, M. (2008a). The effect of neighborhood frequency in reading: Evidence with transposed-letter neighbors. Cognition, 108, 290-300. doi: 10. 1016/j. cognition. 2008. 02. 006.
4. Acha, J., & Perea, M. (2008b). The effects of length and transposed-letter similarity in lexical decision: Evidence with beginning, intermediate, and adult readers. British Journal of Psychology, 99, 245-264. doi: 10. 1348/000712607X224478.
5. Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247-264. doi: 10. 1016/S0010-0277(99)00059-1.
6. Andrews, S. (1996). Lexical retrieval and selection processes: Effects of transposed-letter confusability. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 775-800. doi: 10. 1006/jmla. 1996. 0040.
7. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390-412. doi: 10. 1016/j. jml. 2007. 12. 005.
8. Balota, D. A., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (1985). The interaction of contextual constraints and parafoveal visual information in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 364-390. doi: 10. 1016/0010-0285(85)90013-1.
9. Chambers, S. M. (1979). Letter and order information in lexical access. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 225-241. doi: 10. 1016/S0022-5371(79)90136-1.
10. Christianson, K., Johnson, R. L., & Rayner, K. (2005). Letter transpositions within and across morphemes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1327-1339. doi: 10. 1037/0278-7393. 31. 6. 1327.
11. Davis, C. J. (1999). The self-organizing lexical acquisition and recognition (SOLAR) model of visual word recognition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New South Wales.
12. Davis, C. J. (2010). The spatial coding model of visual word identification. Psychological Review, 117, 713-758. doi: 10. 1037/a0019738.
13. DeLong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1117-1121. doi: 10. 1038/nn1504.
14. Drieghe, D., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2005). Eye movements and word skipping during reading revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 31, 954-969. doi: 10. 1037/0096-1523. 31. 5. 954.
15. Duffy, S. A., Henderson, J. M., & Morris, R. K. (1989). The semantic facilitation of lexical access during sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 791-801. doi: 10. 1037/0278-7393. 15. 5. 791.
16. Duñabeitia, J. A., Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. (2007). Do transposed-letter similarity effects occur at a morpheme level? Evidence for morpho-orthographic decomposition. Cognition, 105, 691-703. doi: 10. 1016/j. cognition. 2006. 12. 001.
17. Duñabeitia, J. A., Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. (2009). There is no clam with coats in the calm coast: Delimiting the transposed-letter priming effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1930-1947. doi: 10. 1080/17470210802696070.
18. Ehrlich, S. F., & Rayner, K. (1981). Contextual effects on word perception and eye movements during reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 641-655. doi: 10. 1016/S0022-5371(81)90220-6.
19. Federmeier, K. D. (2007). Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 44, 491-505. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1469-8986. 2007. 00531. x.
20. Federmeier, K. D., & Kutas, M. (1999). A rose by any other name: Long-term memory structure and sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 469-495. doi: 10. 1006/jmla. 1999. 2660.
21. Fischler, I., & Bloom, P. A. (1979). Automatic and attentional processes in the effects of sentence contexts on word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 1-20. doi: 10. 1016/S0022-5371(79)90534-6.
22. Fisher, D. F., & Shebilske, W. L. (1985). There is more that meets the eye than the eye-mind assumption. In R. Groner, G. W. McConkie, & C. Menz (Eds.), Eye movements and human information processing (pp. 149-158). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
23. Forster, K. I. (1989). Basic issues in lexical processing. In W. D. Marsen-Wilson (Ed.), Lexical representation and process (pp. 75-107). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. Forster, K. I., Davis, C., Schoknecht, C., & Carter, R. (1987). Masked priming with graphemically related forms: Repetition or partial activation? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39A, 211-251. doi: 10. 1080/14640748708401785.
25. Forster, K. I., Mohan, K., & Hector, J. (2003). The mechanics of masked priming. In S. Kinoshita & S. J. Lupker (Eds.), Masked priming: State of the art (pp. 3-37). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
26. Frisson, S., Rayner, K., & Pickering, M. J. (2005). Effects of contextual predictability and transitional probability on eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 862-877. doi: 10. 1037/0278-7393. 31. 5. 862.
27. Gomez, P., Ratcliff, R., & Perea, M. (2008). The overlap model: A model of letter position coding. Psychological Review, 115, 577-600. doi: 10. 1037/a0012667.
28. Grainger, J., & Whitney, C. (2004). Does the huamn mnid raed wrods as a wlohe? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 58-59. doi: 10. 1016/j. tics. 2003. 11. 006.
29. Hess, D. J., Foss, D. J., & Carroll, P. (1995). Effects of global and local context on lexical processing during language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 124, 62-82. doi: 10. 1037/0096-3445. 124. 1. 62.
30. Holmes, V. M., & Ng, E. (1993). Word-specific knowledge, word-recognition strategies, and spelling ability. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 230-257. doi: 10. 1006/jmla. 1993. 1013.
31. Johnson, R. L., Perea, M., & Rayner, K. (2007). Transposed-letter effects in reading: Evidence from eye movements and parafoveal preview. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 33, 209-229. doi: 10. 1037/0096-1523. 33. 1. 209.
32. Jordan, T. R., & Thomas, S. M. (2002). In search of perceptual influences of sentence context on word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 34-45. doi: 10. 1037/0278-7393. 28. 1. 34.
33. Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 111, 228-238. doi: 10. 1037/0096-3445. 111. 2. 228.
34. Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. T. M., & Haywood, S. L. (2003). The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 133-156. doi: 10. 1016/S0749-596X(03)00023-8.
35. Kliegl, R., Grabner, E., Rolfs, M., & Engbert, R. (2004). Length, frequency, and predictability effects of words on eye movements in reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 262-284. doi: 10. 1080/09541440340000213.
36. Ktori, M., & Pitchford, N. J. (2008). Effect of orthographic transparency on letter position encoding: A comparison of Greek and English monoscriptal and biscriptal readers. Language & Cognitive Processes, 23, 258-281. doi: 10. 1080/01690960701536797.
37. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307, 161-163. doi: 10. 1038/307161a0.
38. Laszlo, S., & Federmeier, K. D. (2009). A beautiful day in the neighborhood: An event-related potential study of lexical relationships and prediction in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 326-338. doi: 10. 1016/j. jml. 2009. 06. 004.
39. Lau, E., Almeida, D., Hines, P. C., & Poeppel, D. (2009). A lexical basis for N400 context effects: Evidence from MEG. Brain and Language, 111, 161-172. doi: 10. 1016/j. bandl. 2009. 08. 007.
40. Lee, C. H., & Taft, M. (2009). Are onsets and codas important in processing letter position? A comparison of TL effects in English and Korean. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 530-542. doi: 10. 1016/j. jml. 2009. 01. 002.
41. Lupker, S. J., Perea, M., & Davis, C. J. (2008). Transposed-letter effects: Consonants, vowels and letter frequency. Language & Cognitive Processes, 23, 93-116. doi: 10. 1080/01690960701579714.
42. Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1989). Access and integration: Projecting sound onto meaning. In W. D. Marslen-Wilson (Ed.), Lexical representation and process (pp. 3-24). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43. Morris, R. K. (1994). Lexical and message-level sentence context effects on fixation times in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 92-103. doi: 10. 1037/0278-7393. 20. 1. 92.
44. Norris, D. (1994). Shortlist: A connectionist model of continuous speech recognition. Cognition, 52, 189-234. doi: 10. 1016/0010-0277(94)90043-4.
45. Norris, D., Kinoshita, S., & van Casteren, M. (2010). A stimulus sampling theory of letter identity and order. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 254-271. doi: 10. 1016/j. jml. 2009. 11. 002.
46. O'Connor, R. E., & Forster, K. I. (1981). Criterion bias and search sequence bias in word recognition. Memory & Cognition, 9, 78-92. doi: 10. 3758/BF03196953.
47. Otten, M., Nieuwland, M. S., & van Berkum, J. J. (2007). Great expectations: Specific lexical anticipation influences the processing of spoken language. BMC Neuroscience, 8, 89. doi: 10. 1186/1471-2202-8-89.
48. Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. (2008). Do orthotactics and phonology constrain the transposed-letter effect? Language & Cognitive Processes, 23, 69-92. doi: 10. 1080/01690960701578146.
49. Perea, M., & Lupker, S. J. (2003a). Does jugde activate court? Transposed-letter similarity effects in masked associative priming. Memory & Cognition, 31, 829-841. doi: 10. 3758/BF03196438.
50. Perea, M., & Lupker, S. J. (2003b). Transposed-letter confusability effects in masked form priming. In S. Kinoshita & S. J. Lupker (Eds.), Masked priming: State of the art (pp. 97-120). Hove, U. K.: Psychology Press.
51. Perea, M., & Lupker, S. J. (2004). Can CANISO activate CASINO? Transposed-letter similarity effects with nonadjacent letter positions. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 231-246. doi: 10. 1016/j. jml. 2004. 05. 005.
52. Rayner, K., & Reichle, E. D. (2010). Models of the reading process. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1, 787-799. doi: 10. 1002/wcs. 68.
53. Rayner, K., & Well, A. D. (1996). Effects of contextual constraint on eye movements in reading: A further examination. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 504-509. doi: 10. 3758/BF03214555.
54. Rayner, K., White, S. J., Johnson, R. L., & Liversedge, S. P. (2006). Raeding wrods with jubmled lettres: There is a cost. Psychological Science, 17, 192-193. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1467-9280. 2006. 01684. x.
55. Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D. L., & Rayner, K. (1998). Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 105, 125-157. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 105. 1. 125.
56. Reichle, E. D., Warren, T., & McConnell, K. (2009). Using E-Z Reader to model the effects of higher level language processing on eye movements during reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 1-21. doi: 10. 3758/PBR. 16. 1. 1.
57. Rueckl, J. G., & Rimzhim, A. (2011). On the interaction of letter transpositions and morphemic boundaries. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 482-508.
58. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime user's guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.
59. Schoonbaert, S., & Grainger, J. (2004). Letter position coding in printed word perception: Effects of repeated and transposed letters. Language & Cognitive Processes, 19, 333-367.
60. Sereno, S. C., & Rayner, K. (1992). Fast priming during eye fixations in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 18, 173-184. doi: 10. 1037/0096-1523. 18. 1. 173.
61. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1979). Mechanisms of sentence context effects in reading: Automatic activation and conscious attention. Memory & Cognition, 7, 77-85. doi: 10. 3758/BF03197588.
62. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1983). On priming by a sentence context. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 112, 1-36. doi: 10. 1037/0096-3445. 112. 1. 1.
63. Trueswell, J. C., & Kim, A. E. (1998). How to prune a garden path by nipping it in the bud: Fast priming of verb argument structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 102-123. doi: 10. 1006/jmla. 1998. 2565.
64. van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., & Hagoort, P. (1999). Early referential context effects in sentence processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 147-182. doi: 10. 1006/jmla. 1999. 2641.
65. van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V., & Hagoort, P. (2005). Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 443-467. doi: 10. 1037/0278-7393. 31. 3. 443.
66. White, S. J., Johnson, R. L., Liversedge, S. P., & Rayner, K. (2008). Eye movements when reading transposed text: The importance of word-beginning letters. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1261-1276. doi: 10. 1037/0096-1523. 34. 5. 1261.
67. Whitney, C. (2001a). How the brain encodes the order of letters in a printed word: The SERIOL model and selective literature review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 221-243. doi: 10. 3758/BF03196158.
68. Whitney, C. (2001b). Position-specific effects within the SERIOL framework of letter-position coding. Connection Science, 13, 235-255. doi: 10. 1080/09540090110083659.
69. Wicha, N. Y. Y., Bates, E. A., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2003). Potato not Pope: Human brain potentials to gender expectation and agreement in Spanish spoken sentences. Neuroscience Letters, 346, 165-168. doi: 10. 1016/S0304-3940(03)00599-8.
70. Wicha, N. Y. Y., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2003). Expecting gender: An event related brain potential study on the role of grammatical gender in comprehending a line drawing within a written sentence in Spanish. Cortex, 39, 483-508. doi: 10. 1016/S0010-9452(08)70260-0.
71. Wicha, N. Y. Y., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2004). Anticipating words and their gender: An event-related brain potential study of semantic integration, gender expectancy, and gender agreement in Spanish sentence reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 1272-1288. doi: 10. 1162/0898929041920487.
72. Zola, D. (1984). Redundancy and word perception during reading. Perception & Psychophysics, 36, 277-284. doi: 10. 3758/BF03206369.