Short Article: Lexical and Sublexical Processes in the Perception of Transposed-Letter Anagrams

Evidence from priming and lexical decision tasks suggests that nonwords created by transposing adjacent letter pairs (TL nonwords) are very effective in activating lexical representations of their base words, because the process of orthographic matching tolerates minor changes in letter position. However, this account disregards the possible role of sublexical processing in reading. TL nonwords are perceptually ambiguous, with lexical and sublexical processing giving rise to conflicting interpretations. The consequences of this ambiguity were investigated in a lexical decision experiment with primes that were either high or low bigram frequency TL versions of target words. Priming effects were much larger for low BF primes (e.g., pucnh–PUNCH) than for high BF primes (e.g., panit–PAINT). This finding is interpreted as evidence that lexical activation can be inhibited by competing output resulting from sublexical processing of TL letter string. We conclude that phonological processing is an important determinant of responses to TL stimuli, and we consider how this interpretation might be accommodated within the dual-route cascaded (DRC) model of word recognition.

[1]  M. Coltheart,et al.  Serial processing in reading aloud: Evidence for dual-route models of reading. , 1994 .

[2]  Colin J. Davis,et al.  The self-organising lexical acquisition and recognition (SOLAR) model of visual word recognition. , 2001 .

[3]  R. H. Baayen,et al.  The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM) , 1996 .

[4]  H. Rubenstein,et al.  Homographic entries in the internal lexicon , 1970 .

[5]  S. Andrews.  The effect of orthographic similarity on lexical retrieval: Resolving neighborhood conflicts , 1997 .

[6]  G. Stone,et al.  Strategic control of processing in word recognition. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  C. Whitney.  How the brain encodes the order of letters in a printed word: The SERIOL model and selective literature review , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[8]  D. O. Robinson,et al.  The role of bigram frequency in the perception of words and nonwords , 1975, Memory & cognition.

[9]  M Coltheart,et al.  DRC: a dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. , 2001, Psychological review.

[10]  S. Lupker,et al.  Does jugde activate COURT? Transposed-letter similarity effects in masked associative priming , 2003, Memory & cognition.

[11]  K. Rastle,et al.  Masked phonological priming effects in English: Are they real? Do they matter? , 2006, Cognitive Psychology.

[12]  Kenneth I Forster,et al.  DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy , 2003, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[13]  Jeffrey S Bowers,et al.  Contrasting five different theories of letter position coding: evidence from orthographic similarity effects. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[14]  Clive Frankish,et al.  SIHGT and SUNOD: The role of orthography and phonology in the perception of transposed letter anagrams , 2007 .

[15]  Chris Westbury,et al.  The Probability of the Least Likely Non-Length-Controlled Bigram Affects Lexical Decision Reaction Times , 2002, Brain and Language.

[16]  K. Forster,et al.  Masked priming with graphemically related forms: Repetition or partial activation? , 1987 .

[17]  M. Carreiras,et al.  Do Transposed-Letter Similarity Effects Occur at a Prelexical Phonological Level? , 2006, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.