Pseudohomophone effects in lexical decision: Still a challenge for current word recognition models

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 547-559

  Ziegler, Johannes C ^a,b,e   Jacobs, Arthur M ^c   Klüppel, Dorothee ^d  

^a CNRS   (France)

^b MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF EICHSTÄTT INGOLSTADT   (Germany)

^d PHILIPPS UNIVERSITY MARBURG   (Germany)

^e AIX MARSEILLE UNIVERSITÉ   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; LINGUISTICS; MALE; PHONETICS; REACTION TIME; READING; SEMANTICS;

ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PHONETICS; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; REACTION TIME; READING; SEMANTICS; VERBAL LEARNING;

EID: 85047683464     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.27.3.547     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM). Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
2. Baron, J. (1973). Phonemic stage not necessary for reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25, 241-246.
3. Becker, C. A. (1976). Allocation of attention during visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 556-566.
4. 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.
5. Besner, D., & Davelaar, E. (1983). Suedohohofoan effects in visual word recognition: Evidence for phonological processing. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 37, 300-305.
6. Besner, D., Twilley, L., McCann, R. S., & Seergobin, K. (1990). On the association between connectionism and data: Are a few words necessary? Psychological Review, 3, 432-446.
7. Borowsky, R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1999). Frequency effects and lexical access: On the interpretation of null pseudohomophone base-word frequency effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 270-275.
8. Coltheart, M., Curtis, B., Atkins, P., & Haller, M. (1993). Models of reading aloud: Dual-route and parallel distributed processing approaches. Psychological Review, 100, 589-608.
9. Coltheart, M., Davelaar, E., Jonasson, J. T., & Besner, D. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp. 535-555). London: Academic Press.
10. Coltheart, M., & Rastle, K. (1994). Serial processing in reading aloud: Evidence for dual-route models of reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 1197-1211.
11. 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.
12. Coltheart, V., Patterson, K., & Leahy, J. (1994). When a ROWS is a ROSE: Phonological effects in written word comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A, 917-955.
13. Dennis, I., Besner, D., & Davelaar, E. (1985). Phonology in visual word recognition: Their is more two this than meats the I. In D. Besner, T. G. Waller, & G. E. MacKinnon (Eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and practice (Vol. 5, pp. 167-197). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
14. Doctor, E. A., & Coltheart, M. (1980). Children's use of phonological encoding when reading for meaning. Memory & Cognition, 8, 195-209.
15. Dorfman, D., & Glanzer, M. (1988). List composition effects in lexical decision and recognition memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 633-648.
16. Frost, R. (1998). Towards a strong phonological theory of visual word recognition: True issues and false trails. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 71-99.
17. Grainger, J., & Jacobs, A. M. (1996). Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model. Psychological Review, 103, 518-565.
18. Grainger, J., Spinelli, E., & Ferrand, L. (2000). Effects of baseword frequency and orthographic neighborhood size in pseudohomophone naming. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 88-102.
19. Herdman, C. M., LeFevre, J., & Greenham, S. L. (1996). Base-word frequency and pseudohomophone naming. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 1044-1061.
20. Jacobs, A. M. (1999). The role of phonological processes in reading: A model-guided, cross-linguistic approach. Research report, Katholische Universität Eichstätt, Eichstätt, Germany.
21. Jacobs, A. M., Rey, A., Ziegler, J. C., & Grainger, J. (1998). MROM-P: An interactive activation, multiple read-out model of orthographic and phonological processes in visual word recognition. In J. Grainger & A. M. Jacobs (Eds.), Localist connectionist approaches to human cognition (pp. 147-188). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Kwantes, P. J., & Marmurek, H. H. C. (1994, November). Orthographic effects in reading pseudohomophones. Paper presented at the 35th annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, St. Louis, MO.
23. Martin, R. C. (1982). The pseudohomophone effect: The role of visual similarity in non-word decisions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 34A, 395-409.
24. McCann, R. S., & Besner, D. (1987). Reading pseudohomophones: Implications for models of pronunciation and the locus of word-frequency effects in word naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 14-24.
25. McCann, R. S., Besner, D., & Davelaar, E. (1988). Word recognition and identification: Do word-frequency effects reflect lexical access? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 693-706.
26. 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.
27. O'Regan, J. K., & Jacobs, A. M. (1992). The optimal viewing position effect in word recognition: A challenge to current theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 185-197.
28. Paap, K., & Johansen, L. (1994). The case of the vanishing frequency effect: A retest of the verification model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6, 1129-1157.
29. Paap, K., McDonald, J. E., Schvaneveldt, R. W., & Noel, R. W. (1987). Frequency and pronounceability in visually presented naming and lexical decision tasks. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 221-243). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Paap, K., Newsome, S. L., McDonald, J. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1982). An activation-verification model for letter and word recognition: The word superiority effect. Psychological Review, 89, 573-594.
31. Pexman, P. M., & Lupker, S. J. (1999). Ambiguity and visual word recognition: Can feedback explain both homophone and polysemy effects? Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 323-334.
32. 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.
33. Rubenstein, H., Lewis, S. S., & Rubenstein, M. A. (1971). Evidence for phonemic recoding in visual word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 645-657.
34. Scheerer, E. (1987). Visual word recognition in German. In A. Allport, D. G. MacKay, W. Prinz, & E. Scheerer (Eds.), Language perception and production: Relationships between listening, speaking, reading and writing (pp. 227-244). London: Academic Press.
35. Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523-568.
36. Seidenberg, M. S., Petersen, A., MacDonald, M. C., & Plaut, D. C. (1996). Pseudohomophone effects and models of word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 48-62.
37. 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.
38. Stone, G. O., Vanhoy, M., & Van Orden, G. C. (1997). Perception is a two-way street: Feedforward and feedback phonology in visual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 337-359.
39. Taft, M. (1982). An alternative to grapheme-phoneme conversion rules? Memory & Cognition, 10, 465-474.
40. Taft, M. (1991). Reading and the mental lexicon. Hove, UK: Erlbaum.
41. Taft, M., & Russell, B. (1992). Pseudohomophone naming and the word frequency effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45A, 51-71.
42. Taft, M., & van Graan, G. (1998). Lack of phonological mediation in a semantic categorization task. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 203-224.
43. Underwood, G., Roberts, M., & Thomason, H. (1988). Strategical invariance in lexical access: The reappearance of the pseudohomophone effect. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 42, 24-34.
44. Van Orden, G. C. (1987). A ROWS is a ROSE: Spelling, sound, and reading. Memory & Cognition, 15, 181-198.
45. Van Orden, G. C. (1991). Phonological mediation is fundamental to reading. In D. Besner & G. Humphreys (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 77-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
46. 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.
47. Van Orden, G. C., Jansen op de Haar, M. A., & Bosman, A. M. T. (1997). Complex dynamic systems also predict dissociations, but they do not reduce to autonomous components. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 131-165.
48. 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.
49. Van Orden, G. C., Stone, G. O., Garlington, K. L., Markson, L. R., Pinnt, G. S., Simonfy, C. M., & Brichetto, T. (1992). "Assembled" phonology and reading: A case study in how theoretical perspective shapes empirical investigation. In R. Frost & L. Katz (Eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning (pp. 249-292). Amsterdam: North Holland.
50. Weber, R. M. (1970). A linguistic analysis of first-grade spelling errors. Reading Research Quarterly, 5, 427-451.
51. Weekes, B. S. (1997). Differential effects of number of letters on words and nonword naming latency. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 439-456.
52. 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.
53. Ziegler, J. C., Jacobs, A. M., & Stone, G. O. (1996). Statistical analysis of the bidirectional inconsistency of spelling and sound in French. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 504-515.
54. Ziegler, J. C., Montant, M., & Jacobs, A. M. (1997). The feedback consistency effect in lexical decision and naming. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 533-554.
55. Ziegler, J. C., Perry, C., & Coltheart, M. (2000). The DRC model of visual word recognition and reading aloud: An extension to German. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 12, 413-430.
56. Ziegler, J. C., Stone, G. O., & Jacobs, A. M. (1997). What's the pronunciation for -OUGH and the spelling for /u/? A database for computing feedforward and feedback inconsistency in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 29, 600-618.
57. Ziegler, J. C., Van Orden, G. C., & Jacobs, A. M. (1997). Phonology can help or hurt the perception of print. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 845-860.