Type and token bigram frequencies for two-through nine-letter words and the prediction of anagram difficulty

[1]  D. Balota,et al.  Visual word recognition of multisyllabic words , 2009 .

[2]  Sascha Tamm,et al.  Syllables and bigrams: orthographic redundancy and syllabic units affect visual word recognition at different processing levels. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[3]  Laura R Novick,et al.  The Effects of Superficial and Structural Information on Online Problem Solving for Good versus Poor Anagram Solvers , 2008, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[4]  Manuel Carreiras,et al.  Contrasting effects of token and type syllable frequency in lexical decision , 2008 .

[5]  Prisca Stenneken,et al.  Sublexical frequency measures for orthographic and phonological units in German , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[6]  W. Ziegler,et al.  Is there a need to control for sublexical frequencies? , 2005, Brain and Language.

[7]  Laura R Novick,et al.  Type-based bigram frequencies for five-letter words , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[8]  B. Rapp.  The nature of sublexical orthographic organization: The bigram trough hypothesis examined , 1992 .

[9]  M. Coltheart,et al.  Attention and Performance XII: The Psychology of Reading , 1987 .

[10]  R. Treiman,et al.  How to see a reading unit , 1986 .

[11]  Robert L. Solso,et al.  Positional frequency and versatility of bigrams for two- through nine-letter English words , 1980 .

[12]  K. Gilhooly,et al.  Effects of Solution Word Attributes on Anagram Difficulty: A Regression Analysis , 1978 .

[13]  G. A. Mendelsohn.  An hypothesis approach to the solution of anagrams , 1976, Memory & cognition.

[14]  G. A. Mendelsohn,et al.  The solution of anagrams: A reexamination of the effects of transition letter probabilities, letter moves, and word frequency on anagram difficulty , 1974, Memory & cognition.

[15]  Gene E. Topper,et al.  Anagram solution as a function of bigram versatility , 1973 .

[16]  H. H. Clark.  The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. , 1973 .

[17]  E. B. Coleman.  Generalizing to a Language Population , 1964 .

[18]  Mark S. Seidenberg.  Reading Complex Words , 1989 .

[19]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Linguistic Structure in Language Processing , 1988 .

[20]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  Sublexical structures in visual word recognition: Access units or orthographic redundancy? , 1987 .

[21]  H. Kucera,et al.  Computational analysis of present-day American English , 1967 .

[22]  M. S. Mayzner,et al.  Anagram solution times: a function of multiple-solution anagrams. , 1966, Journal of experimental psychology.

[23]  M. S. Mayzner,et al.  Tables of single-letter and digram frequency counts for various word-length and letter-position combinations. , 1965 .

[24]  R. R. Ronning,et al.  ANAGRAM SOLUTION TIMES: A FUNCTION OF THE "RULEOUT" FACTOR. , 1965, Journal of experimental psychology.

[25]  M. S. Mayzner,et al.  Anagram Solution Times: A Function of Transition Probabilities , 1959 .