Semantic and phonological influences on the processing of words and pseudohomophones

In two experiments, we investigated the relationship between semantics and phonology in the lexical decision task. In the first experiment, lexical decisions to words with large semantic neighborhoods were faster than those to words with sparse semantic neighborhoods. Conversely, this effect of semantic neighborhood was reversed for pseudohomophones (e.g.,nale). That is, pseudohomophones based on words with large semantic neighborhoods took longer to reject than did those based on words with sparse semantic neighborhoods. In the second experiment, we found the magnitude of the semantic neighborhood effect for words to be a function of nonword foil type. Taken together, these results indicate that semantic neighborhood size affects processing of both words and pseudohomophones, and that the effect of semantic neighborhood size for words is more pronounced when pseudohomophone foils are employed. These effects are discussed in terms of a model in which the orthographic, phonological, and semantic systems are fully interactive.

[1]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Micro Experimental Laboratory: An integrated system for IBM PC compatibles , 1988 .

[2]  Thomas A. Schreiber,et al.  Processing implicit and explicit representations. , 1992, Psychological review.

[3]  Michael Wilson,et al.  MRC psycholinguistic database: Machine-usable dictionary, version 2.00 , 1988 .

[4]  Michael Wilson.  MRC Psycholinguistic Database , 2001 .

[5]  John B. Carroll,et al.  The American Heritage Word Frequency Book , 1971 .

[6]  S. Lupker,et al.  Ambiguity and visual word recognition: can feedback explain both homophone and polysemy effects? , 1999, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[7]  James L. McClelland,et al.  A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. , 1989, Psychological review.

[8]  H. Rubenstein,et al.  Evidence for phonemic recoding in visual word recognition , 1971 .

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

[10]  J C Ziegler,et al.  Pseudohomophone effects in lexical decision: still a challenge for current word recognition models. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[11]  L. Katz,et al.  Evidence of flexible coding in visual word recognition. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[12]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  CASE MIXING AND THE TASK-SENSITIVE DISRUPTION OF LEXICAL PROCESSING , 1996 .

[13]  Ron Borowsky,et al.  Diagnostics of phonological lexical processing: Pseudohomophone naming advantages, disadvantages, and base-word frequency effects , 2002, Memory & cognition.

[14]  David C. Plaut,et al.  Structure and Function in the Lexical System: Insights from Distributed Models of Word Reading and Lexical Decision , 1997 .

[15]  G. C. Orden,et al.  Pseudohomophones and word recognition , 2001, Memory & cognition.

[16]  J. Ziegler,et al.  Pseudohomophone effects and phonological recoding procedures in reading development in English and German , 2001 .

[17]  Curt Burgess,et al.  Characterizing semantic space: Neighborhood effects in word recognition , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[18]  G. C. Orden,et al.  Pathway selection's utility for control of word recognition. , 1998 .

[19]  Ron Borowsky,et al.  SEMANTIC AMBIGUITY EFFECTS IN WORD IDENTIFICATION , 1996 .

[20]  Pseudohomophone effects and models of word recognition. , 1996 .

[21]  D. Besner,et al.  The process of lexical decision: More words about a parallel distributed processing model. , 1992 .

[22]  G. Underwood,et al.  Strategical invariance in lexical access: The reappearance of the pseudohomophone effect. , 1988 .

[23]  D L Nelson,et al.  Implicit memory: effects of network size and interconnectivity on cued recall. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

[25]  Brian I. Glucroft.  Software: SPSS for Windows SPSS Inc. 233 S. Wacker Dr., 11th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 651-3000 www.spss.com , 2001 .

[26]  G. C. Orden,et al.  Word identification in reading proceeds from spelling to sound to meaning. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[27]  C. T. James.  The Role of Semantic Information in Lexical Decisions. , 1975 .

[28]  G. C. Orden.  A ROWS is a ROSE: Spelling, sound, and reading , 1987 .

[29]  I. Berent.  Phonological priming in the lexical decision task: regularity effects are not necessary evidence for assembly. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[30]  Greg B. Simpson,et al.  Semantic neighborhood effects on the recognition of ambiguous words , 2003, Memory & cognition.

[31]  D. Besner,et al.  Suedohomofoan effects in visual word recognition: evidence for phonological processing. , 1983, Canadian journal of psychology.

[32]  L Pring,et al.  Phonological codes and functional spelling units: Reality and implications , 1981, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[34]  G. C. Orden,et al.  Interdependence of form and function in cognitive systems explains perception of printed words. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[35]  Derek Besner,et al.  Word recognition and identification: Do word-frequency effects reflect lexical access? , 1988 .

[36]  Max Coltheart,et al.  Access to the internal lexicon , 1977 .