Transposed-letter confusability effects in masked form priming

Masked Priming: The State of the Art

Volumn , Issue , 2003, Pages 53-66

  Perea, Manuel ^a   Lupker, Stephen J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VALENCIA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84906619887     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203502846     Document Type: Chapter

References (38)

1. Andrews, S. (1996). Lexical retrieval and selection processes: Effects of transposed-letter confusability. Journal of Memory & Language, 35, 775-800.
2. Bodner, G.E., & Masson, M.E.J. (1997). Masked repetition priming for words and nonwords: Evidence for a nonlexical basis for priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 268-293.
3. 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.
4. Castles, A., Davis, C., & Forster, K.I. (2003, this volume, pp. 345-361). Word recognition development in children: Insights from maskedpriming.
5. Chambers, S.M. (1979). Letter and order information in lexical access. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 225-241.
6. Coltheart, M., Davelaar, E., Jonasson, J.F., & Besner, D. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp. 535-555). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Ziegler, J., & Langdon, R. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108, 204-256.
8. Davis, C.J. (1999). The self-organising lexical acquisition and recognition (SOLAR) model of visual word recognition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New South Wales.
9. Davis, C.J., & Andrews, S. (2001, April). Inhibitory effects of transposed-letter similarity for words and nonwords of different lengths. Paper presented at the 28th Annual Australian Experimental Psychology Conference. Melbourne, Australia.
10. de Moor, W., & Brysbaert, M. (2000). Neighborhood-frequency effects when primes and targets have different lengths. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 63, 159-162.
11. Estes, W.K., Allmeyer, D.H., & Reder, S.M. (1976). Serial position functions for letter identification at brief and extended exposure durations. Perception & Psychophysics, 19, 1-15.
12. Forster, K.I. (1998). The pros and cons of masked priming. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 203-233.
13. Forster, K.I. (2000). The potential experimenter bias effects in word recognition experiments. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1109-1115.
14. Forster, K.I., Mohan, K., & Hector, J. (2003, this volume, pp. 3-37). The mechanics of masked priming.
15. Forster, K.I., & Davis, C. (1984). Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 10, 680-698.
16. 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, 39, 211-251.
17. Forster, K.I., & Taft, M. (1994). Bodies, anti-bodies, and neighborhood density effects in masked form priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20, 844-863.
18. Grainger, J., & Jacobs, A.M. (1996). Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model. Psychological Review, 103, 518-565.
19. Holmes, V.M., & Ng, E. (1993). Word-specific knowledge, word-recognition strategies, and spelling ability. Journal of Memory & Language, 32, 230-257.
20. Humphreys, G.W., Evett, L.J., & Quinlan, P. T. (1990). Orthographic processing in visual word recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 517-560.
21. Jacobs, A.M., Rey, A., Ziegler, J.C., & Grainger, J. (1998). MROM-p: An interactive activation, multiple readout model of orthographic and phonological processes in visual word recognition. In J.Grainger and A.M.Jacobs (Eds.), Localist connectionist approaches to human cognition (pp. 147-188). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Jordan, T.R. (1990). Presenting words without interior letters: Superiority over single letters and influence of postmark boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 16, 891-909.
23. Kučera, H., & Francis, W.N. (1967). Compu tational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
24. McClelland, J.L., & Rumelhart, D.E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375-407.
25. Mozer, M. (1987). Early parallel processing in reading: A connectionist approach. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII:The psychology of reading (pp. 83-104). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. O'Connor, R.E., & Forster, K.I. (1981). Criterion bias and search sequence bias in word recognition. Memory & Cognition, 9, 78-92.
27. Paap, K.R., Newsome, S.L., McDonald, J.E., & Schvaneveldt, R.W. (1982). An activationverification model for letter and word recognition:The word superiority effect. Psychological Review, 89, 573-594.
28. Perea, M. (1998). Orthographic neighbours are not all equal: Evidence using an identification technique. Language & Cognitive Processes, 13, 77-90.
29. Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. (1998). Effects of syllable frequency and neighborhood syllable frequency in visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 1-11.
30. Perea, M., & Lupker, S.J. (in press). Does jugde activate COURT? Transposed-letter similarity effects in masked associative priming. Memory & Cognition.
31. Perea, M., & Rosa, E. (2000). Repetition and form priming interact with neighborhood density at a brief stimulus-onset asynchrony. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 668-677.
32. Perea, M, Rosa, E., & Gómez, C. (2002). The effects of transposed-letter confusability and pseudoword frequency in the lexical decision task. Submitted.
33. Peressotti, F, & Grainger, J. (1999). The role of letter identity and letter position in orthographic priming. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 691-703.
34. Pollatsek, A., & Well, A. (1995). On the use of counterbalanced designs in cognitive research: A suggestion for a better and more powerful analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 785-794.
35. Seidenberg, M.S., & McClelland, J.L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523-568.
36. Sereno, J.A. (1991). Graphemic, associative, and syntactic priming effects at a brief stimulus onset asynchrony in lexical decision and naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 17, 459-477.
37. Taft, M., & van Graan, F. (1998). Lack of phonological mediation in a semantic categorization task. Journal of Memory & Language, 38, 203-224.
38. Whitney, C. (2001). 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.