Psychological Research

, Volume 53, Issue 1, pp 13–24 | Cite as

Dual-route models of print to sound: Still a good horse race

  • Kenneth R. Paap
  • Ronald W. Noel


Dual-route models assume that pronunciations are generated along both a lexical route and a nonlexical route. The lexical route has been characterized as more automatic. Accordingly, if the naming task is paired with a concurrent task, then the nonlexical route should be more susceptible to interference than the lexical pathway. A relative slowing of the nonlexical route should eliminate the regularity effect obtained with low-frequency words while significantly enhancing the small frequency effect obtained with regular words. These predictions were confirmed. Exception words were actually named 39 ms faster under high load. The results are inconsistent with any straightforward application of single-route models.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barber, P. J., & Millar, D. G. (1982). Subjective judgements of spellingsound correspondences: Effects of word regularity and word frequency.Memory & Cognition, 10, 457–464.Google Scholar
  2. Becker, C. A. (1976). Allocation of attention during visual word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 556–566.Google Scholar
  3. Coltheart, M., Besner, D., Jonassen, J. T., & Davelaar, E. (1979). Phonological encoding in the lexical decision task.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31, 489–507.Google Scholar
  4. Davelaar, E., Coltheart, M., Besner, D., & Jonasson, J. T. (1978). Phonological recoding and lexical access.Memory & Cognition, 6, 391–402.Google Scholar
  5. Feldman, L. B., & Turvey, M. T. (1983). Word recognition in SerboCroatian is phonologically analytic.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 288–298.Google Scholar
  6. Frost, R., Katz, L., & Bentin, S. (1987). Strategies for visual word recognition and orthographical depth: A multilingual comparison.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 104–115.Google Scholar
  7. Glushko, R. J. (1979). The organization and activation of orthographic knowledge in reading aloud.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 674–691.Google Scholar
  8. Glushko, R. J. (1981). Principles for pronouncing print: The psychology of phonography. In A. M. Lesgold & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.),Interactive processes in reading (pp. 61–84). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Herdman, C. M., & Dobbs, A. R. (1989). Attentional demands of visual word recognition.Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 124–132.Google Scholar
  10. Humphreys, G. W., & Evett, L. (1985). Are there independent lexical and nonlexical routes in word processing? An evaluation of the dual route theory of reading.Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 8, 689–739.Google Scholar
  11. Kucera, H., & Francis, W. (1967).Computational analysis of presentday American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Lukatela, G., Feldman, L. B., Turvey, M. T., Carello, C., & Katz, L. (1989). Context effects in bi-alphabetical word perception.Journal of Memory and language, 28, 214–236.Google Scholar
  13. Lukatela, G., Turvey, M. T., Feldman, L. B., Carello, C., & Katz, L. (1989). Alphabet priming in bi-alphabetical word perception.Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 237–254.Google Scholar
  14. Marcel, A. J. (1980). Surface dyslexia and beginning reading: A revised hypothesis of the pronunciation of print and its impairments. In M. Coltheart, K. Patterson, & J. C. Marshall (Eds.),Deep Dyslexia (pp. 227–258). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  15. Navon, D. (1984). Resources — A theoretical soup stone?Psychological Review, 91, 216–234.Google Scholar
  16. Navon, D. (1985). Attention division or attention sharing? In M. Posner & O. Marin (Eds.),Attention & performance XI (pp. 133–146). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Norman, D. A., & Bobrow, D. J. (1975). On data-limited and resourcelimited processes.Cognitive Psychology, 7, 44–64.Google Scholar
  18. Paap, K. R., Chen, L., & Noel, R. W. (1987). Word recognition: Is the sky falling on top-down processing? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society. Seattle, Washington.Google Scholar
  19. Paap, K. R., McDonald, J. E., Schvaneveldt, R. W., & Noel, R. W. (1987). Frequency and pronounceability in visually presented naming and lexical-decision tasks. In M. Coltbeart (Ed.),Attention & performance XII (pp. 221–244). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Paap, K. R., Newsome, S. L., McDonald, J. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1982). An activation-verification model for letter and word recognition: The word-superiority effect.Psychological Review, 89, 573–594.Google Scholar
  21. Paap, K. R., & Ogden, W. C. (1981). Letter encoding is an obligatory, but capacity demanding operation.Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Human Perception andPerformance, 7, 518–527.Google Scholar
  22. Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming.Psychological Review, 96, 523–568.Google Scholar
  23. Seidenberg, M. S., Waters, G. S., Barnes, M. A., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1984). When does irregular spelling or pronunciation influence word recognition?Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 383–404.Google Scholar
  24. Tabossi, P. (1989). Reading in two writing systems: Italian and English.Word and Sentence Recognition. Workshop sponsored by the European Cognitive Psychology Society, Zadar, Yugoslavia.Google Scholar
  25. Taraban, R., & McClelland, J. L. (1987). Conspiracy effects in word pronunciation.Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 608–631.Google Scholar
  26. Turvey, M. T. (1989). Summary of 15 years of research on Serbo-Croatian word recognition.Word and Sentence Recognition. Workshop sponsored by the European Cognitive Psychology Society, Zadar, Yugoslavia.Google Scholar
  27. Venezky, R. L. (1970).The structure of English orthography. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenneth R. Paap
    • 1
  • Ronald W. Noel
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychology and Computing Research LaboratoryNew Mexico State UniversityLas CrucesUSA

Personalised recommendations