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

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Reading Orthography Phonology Lexical decision Visual word recognition

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andrews

(1997). The effect of orthographic similarity on lexical retrieval: Resolving neighborhood conflicts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 4, 439–461.

Baayen

R. H.

Piepenbrock

van Rijn

(1993). The CELEX Lexical Database [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.

Coltheart

Rastle

(1994). Serial processing in reading aloud: Evidence for dual-route models of reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 20, 1197–1211.

Coltheart

Rastle

Perry

Langdon

Ziegler

(2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review 108, 204–256.

Davis

(1999). The self-organising lexical acquisition and recognition (SOLAR) model of visual word recognition Australia: Department of Psychology, University of New South Wales Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Davis

C. J.

Bowers

J. S.

(2006). Contrasting five different theories of letter position coding: Evidence from orthographic similarity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 32, 535–557.

Forster

K. I.

Davis

Schoknecht

Carter

(1987). Masked priming with graphemically related forms: Repetition or partial activation?. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 39, 211–251.

Forster

K. I.

Forster

J. C.

(2003). A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods Instruments & Computers 35, 116–124.

Frankish

Turner

(2007). SIHGT and SUNOD: The role of orthography and phonology in the perception of transposed letter anagrams. Journal of Memory and Language 56, 189–211.

10.

Perea

Carreiras

(2006). Do transposed-letter similarity effects occur at a prelexical phonological level?. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 59, 1600–1613.

11.

Perea

Lupker

S. J.

(2003). Does jugde activate COURT? Transposed-letter similarity effects in masked associative priming. Memory and Cognition 31, 829–841.

12.

Rastle

Brysbaert

(2006). Masked phonological priming effects in English: Are they real? Do they matter?. Cognitive Psychology 53, 97–145.

13.

Rice

G. A.

Robinson

D. O.

(1975). Role of bigram frequency in perception of words and nonwords. Memory & Cognition 3, 513–518.

14.

Rubenstein

Garfield

Millikan

J. A.

(1970). Homographic entries in the internal lexicon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 9, 487–494.

15.

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.

16.

Westbury

Buchanan

(2002). The probability of the least likely non length-controlled bigram affects lexical decision RTs. Brain and Language 81, 66–78.

17.

Whitney

(2001). How the brain encodes the order of letters in a printed word: The SERIOL model and selective literature review. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 8, 221–243.