Is reading-aloud performance in megastudies systematically influenced by the list context?

To examine megastudy context effects, 585 critical words, each with a different orthographic rime, were placed at the beginning or end of a 2614-word megastudy of reading aloud. Sixty participants (30 participants in each condition) responded to these words. Specific predictors examined for change between beginning and end conditions were frequency, length, feedforward rime consistency, feedforward onset consistency, orthographic neighbourhood size, age of acquisition (AoA), and imageability. While it took longer to respond to items at the end of the experiment than items at the beginning of the experiment, there was very little change in the effects of the specific variables assessed. Thus, there is little evidence of list context effects influencing the estimates of the predictor variables in large-scale megastudies.

[1]  David A. Balota,et al.  Bringing Computational Models of Word Naming Down to the Item Level , 1997 .

[2]  M. Brysbaert,et al.  Practice Effects in Large-Scale Visual Word Recognition Studies: A Lexical Decision Study on 14,000 Dutch Mono- and Disyllabic Words and Nonwords , 2010, Front. Psychology.

[3]  Michael J Cortese,et al.  Age of acquisition predicts naming and lexical-decision performance above and beyond 22 other predictor variables: An analysis of 2,342 words , 2007, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[4]  Zachary Estes,et al.  The unexplained nature of reading. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[5]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  The British Lexicon Project: Lexical decision data for 28,730 monosyllabic and disyllabic English words , 2011, Behavior Research Methods.

[6]  Rebecca Treiman,et al.  Feedback-consistency effects in single-word reading: Brett Kessler, Rebecca Treiman, and John , 2007 .

[7]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Understanding normal and impaired word reading: computational principles in quasi-regular domains. , 1996, Psychological review.

[8]  Arnaud Rey,et al.  Validated intraclass correlation statistics to test item performance models , 2010, Behavior research methods.

[9]  Marco Zorzi,et al.  Nested incremental modeling in the development of computational theories: the CDP+ model of reading aloud. , 2007, Psychological review.

[10]  Michael J Cortese,et al.  Subjective frequency estimates for 2,938 monosyllabic words , 2001, Memory & cognition.

[11]  Michael J Cortese,et al.  Recognition memory for 2,578 monosyllabic words , 2010, Memory.

[12]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  The basis of consistency effects in word naming , 1990 .

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

[14]  Michael J Cortese,et al.  Visual word recognition of single-syllable words. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[15]  Yuk Fai Cheong,et al.  HLM 6: Hierarchical Linear and Nonlinear Modeling , 2000 .

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

[17]  J. L. Myers,et al.  Regression analyses of repeated measures data in cognitive research. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[18]  Louise Connell,et al.  I see/hear what you mean: semantic activation in visual word recognition depends on perceptual attention. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[19]  S. Lupker,et al.  Strategic Control in a Naming Task: Changing Routes or Changing Deadlines? , 1997 .

[20]  D. Besner,et al.  Visual Word Recognition: Evidence for Strategic Control of Lexical and Nonlexical Routines in Oral Reading , 1991 .

[21]  Daragh E. Sibley,et al.  Error, error everywhere: A look at megastudies of word reading , 2009 .

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

[23]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English , 2009, Behavior research methods.

[24]  D. Balota,et al.  Individual differences in information-processing rate and amount: implications for group differences in response latency. , 1999, Psychological bulletin.

[25]  Michael J Cortese,et al.  Do the effects of subjective frequency and age of acquisition survive better word frequency norms? , 2011, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[26]  Rebecca Treiman,et al.  The English Lexicon Project , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[27]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  When does irregular spelling or pronunciation influence word recognition , 1984 .

[28]  D. Balota,et al.  Priming and attentional control of lexical and sublexical pathways during naming. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.