A computational and empirical investigation of graphemes in reading

Cognitive Science

Volumn 37, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 800-828

  Perry, Conrad ^a   Ziegler, Johannes C ^b   Zorzi, Marco ^c  

^a SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

^b AIX MARSEILLE UNIVERSITY   (France)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Computational modeling; Connectionism; Graphemes; Orthography; Reading

Indexed keywords

EID: 84879831664     PISSN: 03640213     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12030     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Adams, M. J. (1981). What good is orthographic redundancy? In O. J. L. Tzeng & H. Singer (Eds.), Perception of print: Reading research in experimental psychology (pp. 197-221). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111, 1036-1060.
4. Ans, B., Carbonnel, S., & Valdois, S. (1998). A connectionist multiple-trace memory model for polysyllabic word reading. Psychological Review, 105, 678-723.
5. Arciuli, J., & Cupples, L. (2006). The processing of lexical stress in word recognition: Typicality effects and orthographic correlates. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 920-948.
6. Baayen, R. H., Milin, P., urdević, D. F., Hendrix, P., & Marelli, M. (2011). An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. Psychological Review, 118, 438-481.
7. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM): Linguistic data consortium. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.
8. Balota, D. A., & Spieler, D. (1998). The utility of item-level analysis in model evaluation: A reply to Seidenberg and Plaut. Psychological Science, 9, 238-240.
9. Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., Neely, J. H., Nelson, D. L., Simpson, G. B & Treiman, R. (2007). The English lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445-459.
10. Bartlett, S., Kondrak, G., & Cherry, C. (2008). Automatic syllabification with structured SVMs for letter-to-phoneme conversion. In K. McKeown, J. D. Moore, S. Teufel, J. Allan & S. Furui (Eds), Proceedings of ACL-08: HLT (pp. 568-576). Columbus, OH: Association for Computational Linguistics.
11. Caramazza, A., & Miceli, G. (1990). The structure of graphemic representations. Cognition, 37, 243-297.
12. Cassar, M., & Treiman, R. (1997). The beginnings of orthographic knowledge: Children's knowledge of double letters in words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 631-644.
13. Chateau, D., & Jared, D. (2003). Spelling-sound consistency effects in disyllabic word naming. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 255-280.
14. Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. C. (2001). DRC: A computational model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108, 204-256.
15. Cotelli, M., Abutalebi, J., Zorzi, M., & Cappa, S. F. (2003). Vowels in the buffer: A case study of acquired dysgraphia with selective vowel substitutions. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 99-114.
16. Davis, C. J., & Bowers, J. S. (2006). Contrasting five different theories of letter position coding: Evidence from orthographic similarity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 535-557.
17. Diependaele, K., Ziegler, J. C., & Grainger, J. (2010). Fast phonology and the bimodal interactive activation mode. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22, 764-788.
18. Farah, M. J., & McClelland, J. (1991). A computational model of semantic memory impairment: Modality specificity and emergent category specificity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 339-357.
19. Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116-124.
20. Gluck, M. A., & Bower, G. H. (1988). From conditioning to category learning: An adaptive network model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 227-247.
21. Gomez, P., Ratcliff, R., & Perea, M. (2008). The overlap model: A model of letter position coding. Psychological Review, 115, 577-600.
22. Goswami, U., & Ziegler, J. C. (2006). A developmental perspective on the neural code for written words. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 142-143.
23. Hall, T. A. (2006). English syllabification as the interaction of markedness constraints. Studia Linguistica, 60, 1-33.
24. Hammond, M. (1999). The phonology of English. A prosodic optimality-theoretic approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
25. Harm, W. M., & 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.
26. Houghton, G., & Zorzi, M. (2003). Normal and impaired spelling in a connectionist dual-route architecture. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 115-162.
27. Hutzler, F., Ziegler, J. C., Perry, C., Wimmer, H., & Zorzi, M. (2004). Do current connectionist learning models account for reading development in different languages? Cognition, 91, 273-296.
28. Jordan, M. I. (1986). Attractor dynamics and parallelism in a connectionist sequential machine. In Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 531-546). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Erlbaum.
29. Kello, C. T. (2006). Considering the junction model of lexical processing. In S. Andrews (Ed.), From inkmarks to ideas: Current issues in lexical processing (pp. 50-75). New York: Taylor and Francis.
30. Kelly, M. H. (2004). Word onset patterns and lexical stress in English. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 231-244.
31. Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1-75.
32. Lupker, S. J., Acham, A., Davis, C. J., & Perea, M. (2012). An investigation of the role of grapheme units in word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 1-26.
33. MacKay, D. (1971). The structure of words and syllables: Evidence from errors in speech. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 210-227.
34. Marchand, Y., Adsett, C. R., & Damper, R. I. (2009). Automatic syllabification in English: A comparison of different algorithms. Language and Speech, 52, 1-27.
35. McClelland, J. (2009). The place of modelling in cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1, 11-38.
36. Munakata, Y. (1998). Infant perseveration and implications for object permanence theories: A PDP model of the AB task. Developmental Science, 1(2), 161-211.
37. Pacton, S., Perruchet, P., Fayol, M., & Cleeremens, A. (2001). Implicit learning out of the lab: The case of orthographic regularities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 401-426.
38. Pagliuca, G., & Monaghan, P. (2010). Discovering large grain sizes in a transparent orthography: Insights from a connectionist model of Italian word naming. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22, 813-835.
39. 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.
40. Perry, C. (in press). Graphemic parsing and the basic orthographic syllable structure. Language and Cognitive Processes. DOI:10.1080/01690965.2011.641386
41. Perry, C., & Jie, Z. (2005). Prosody and lemma selection. Memory & Cognition, 33, 862-870.
42. Perry, C., Ziegler, J. C., Braun, M., & Zorzi, M. (2010). Rules versus statistics in reading aloud: New evidence on an old debate. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5, 798-812.
43. Perry, C., Ziegler, J. C., & Coltheart, M. (2002). How predictable is spelling? An analysis of sound-spelling contingency in English. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. A, Human Experimental Psychology, 55A, 897-915.
44. Perry, C., Ziegler, J. C., & Zorzi, M. (2007). Nested modeling and strong inference resting in the development of computational theories: The CDP+ model of reading aloud. Psychological Review, 27, 301-333.
45. Perry, C., Ziegler, J. C., & Zorzi, M. (2010). Beyond single syllables: Large-scale modeling of reading aloud with the Connectionist Dual Process (CDP++) model. Cognitive Psychology, 61, 106-151.
46. Pinker, S., & Prince, A. (1988). On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition, 28, 73-193.
47. Plaut, D. C. (1999). A connectionist approach to word reading and acquired dyslexia: Extension to sequential processing. Cognitive Science, 23, 543-568.
48. Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., & Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review, 103, 56-115.
49. Primary Framework for Literacy and Mathematics (2006). Primary Framework for literacy and mathematics. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100202100434/nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/node/84445. Accessed February 17, 2013.
50. Rastle, K., & Coltheart, M. (2000). Lexical and nonlexical print-to-sound translation of disyllabic words and nonwords. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 342-364.
51. Rey, A., Ziegler, J. C., & Jacobs, A. M. (2000). Graphemes are perceptual reading units. Cognition, 75, B1-B12.
52. Rumelhart, D. A., & McClelland, J. (1986). On learning the past tenses of English verbs. In J. L. McClelland, D. E. Rumelhart, & T. P. R. Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Volume 2: Psychological and biological models (pp. 216-271). Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press.
53. Scragg, D. G. (1974). A history of English spelling. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
54. Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523-568.
55. Seidenberg, M. S., & Waters, G. S. (1989). Word recognition and naming: A mega study [Abstract]. Paper presented at the Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society.
56. Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151-218.
57. Spieler, D. H., & Balota, D. (1997). Bringing computational models of word naming down to the item level. Psychological Science, 8, 411-416.
58. Spinelli, E., Kandel, S., Guerassimovitch, H., & Ferrand, L. (2012). Graphemic cohesion effect in reading and writing complex graphemes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 770-791.
59. Stoianov, I., & Zorzi, M. (2012). Emergence of a "Visual number sense" in hierarchical generative models. Nature Neuroscience, 15, 194-196.
60. Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (1981). Toward a modern theory of adaptive networks: Expectation and prediction. Psychological Review, 88, 135-170.
61. Taft, M. (1979). Lexical access via an orthographic code: The Basic Orthographic Syllable Structure (BOSS). Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 21-39.
62. Taft, M. (1991). Reading and the mental lexicon. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
63. Taft, M. (1992). The body of the BOSS: Sub-syllabic units in the lexical processing of polysyllabic words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 1004-1014.
64. Taft, M. (2001). Processing of orthographic structure by adults of different reading ability. Language and Speech, 44, 351-376.
65. Tainturier, M.-J., & Caramazza, A. (1996). Double letters in graphemic representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 53-73.
66. Tainturier, M. J., & Rapp, B. C. (2004). Complex graphemes as functional spelling units: Evidence from acquired dysgraphia. Neurocase, 10, 122-131.
67. Treiman, R., Mullennix, J., Bijeljac-Babic, R., & Richmond-Welty, E. D. (1995). The special role of rimes in the description, use, and acquisition of English orthography. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 107-136.
68. Venezky, R. L. (1967). English orthography: It's graphical structure and its relation to sound. Reading Research Quarterly, 2, 75-105.
69. Venezky, R. L., & Massaro, D. W. (1987). Orthographic structure and spelling-sound regularity in reading English words. In A. Allport, D. G. Mackay, W. Prinz, & E. Scheerer (Eds.), Language perception and production: Relationships between listening, speaking, reading and writing (pp. 159-181). Florida: Academic Press.
70. Waese, M., & Jared, D. (2006). The role of intervocalic consonants in disyllabic word naming. Paper presented at the 47th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Houston: Texas.
71. Widrow, G., & Hoff, M. E. (1960). Adaptive switching circuits. In In Institute of Radio Engineers, Western Electronic Show and Convention Record, Part 4 (pp. 96-104). New York: Institute of Radio Engineers.
72. Yap, M. J., & Balota, D. A. (2009). Visual word recognition of multisyllabic words. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 502-529.
73. Ziegler, J. C., Castel, C., Pech-Georgel, C., George, F., Alario, F.-X., & Perry, C. (2008). Developmental dyslexia and the dual route model of Reading: Simulating individual differences and subtypes. Cognition, 107, 151-178.
74. Zorzi, M. (2010). The connectionist dual process (CDP) approach to modelling reading aloud. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22, 836-860.
75. Zorzi, M., Houghton, G., & Butterworth, B. (1998a). Two routes or one in reading aloud? A connectionist dual-process model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1131-1161.
76. Zorzi, M., Houghton, G., & Butterworth, B. (1998b). The development of spelling-sound relationships in a model of phonological reading. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 337-371.