Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 45–52 | Cite as

Reexamining the word length effect in visual word recognition: New evidence from the English Lexicon Project

  • Boris New
  • Ludovic ferrand
  • Christophe pallier
  • Marc brysbaert


In the present study, we reexamined the effect of word length (number of letters in a word) on lexical decision. Using the English Lexicon Project, which is based on a large data set of over 40,481 words (Balota et al., 2002), we performed simultaneous multiple regression analyses on a selection of 33,006 English words (ranging from 3 to 13 letters in length). Our analyses revealed an unexpected pattern of results taking the form of a U-shaped curve. The effect of number of letters was facilitatory for words of 3–5 letters, null for words of 5–8 letters, and inhibitory for words of 8–13 letters. We also showed that printed frequency, number of syllables, and number of orthographic neighbors all made independent contributions. The length effects were replicated in a new analysis of a subset of 3,833 monomorphemic nouns (ranging from 3 to 10 letters), and also in another analysis based on 12,987 bisyllabic items (ranging from 3 to 9 letters). These effects were independent of printed frequency, number of syllables, and number of orthographic neighbors. Furthermore, we also observed robust linear inhibitory effects of number of syllables. Implications for models of visual word recognition are discussed.


  1. Ans, B., Carbonnel, S., &Valdois, S. (1998). A connectionist multipletrace memory model for polysyllabic word reading.Psychological Review,105, 678–723.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., &Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database (Release 2; CD-ROM). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
  3. Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Neely, J. H., Nelson, D., Simpson, G. B., &Treiman, R. (2002).The English Lexicon Project: A Web-based repository of descriptive and behavioral measures for 40,481 English words and nonwords. St. Louis: Washington University. Available at Scholar
  4. Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., Sergent-Marshall, S. D., Spieler, D. H., &Yap, M. J. (2004). Visual word recognition of single-syllable words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,133, 283–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bijeljac-Babic, R., Millogo, V., Farioli, F., &Grainger, J. (2004). A developmental investigation of word length effects in reading using a new on-line word identification paradigm.Reading & Writing,17, 411–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brysbaert, M., Drieghe, D., & Vitu, F. (in press). Word skipping: Implications for theories of eye movement control in reading. In G. Underwood (Ed.),Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  7. Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., &Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud.Psychological Review,108, 204–256.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Doggett, D., &Richards, L. (1975). A reexamination of the effect of word length on recognition thresholds.American Journal of Psychology,88, 583–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ferrand, L. (2000). Reading aloud polysyllabic words and nonwords: The syllabic length effect reexamined.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,7, 142–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferrand, L., &New, B. (2003). Syllabic length effects in visual word recognition and naming.Acta Psychologica,113, 167–183.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Frederiksen, J. R., &Kroll, J. F. (1976). Spelling and sound: Approaches to the internal lexicon.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,2, 361–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grainger, J., &Jacobs, A. M. (1996). Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model.Psychological Review,103, 518–565.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Howes, D. H., &Solomon, R. L. (1951). Visual duration threshold as a function of word-probability.Journal of Experimental Psychology,41, 401–410.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hudson, P. T. W., &Bergman, M. W. (1985). Lexical knowledge in word recognition: Word length and word frequency in naming and lexical decision tasks.Journal of Memory & Language,24, 46–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Juhasz, B. J., &Rayner, K. (2003). Investigating the effects of a set of intercorrelated variables on eye fixation durations in reading.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,29, 1312–1318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lund, K., &Burgess, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,28, 203–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McGinnies, E., Comer, P. B., &Lacey, O. L. (1952). Visual- recognition thresholds as a function of word length and word frequency.Journal of Experimental Psychology,44, 65–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Monsell, S. (1991). The nature and locus of word frequency effects in reading. In D. Besner & G. W. Humphreys (Eds.),Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 148–197). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Nazir, T. [A.], Ben-Boutayab, N., Decoppet, N., Deutsch, A., &Frost, R. (2004). Reading habits, perceptual learning, and the recognition of printed words.Brain & Language,88, 294–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nazir, T. A., Jacobs, A. M., &O’Regan, J. K. (1998). Letter legibility and visual word recognition.Memory & Cognition,26, 810–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Newbigging, P. L., &Hay, J. (1962). The practice effect in recognition threshold determinations as a function of word frequency and length.Canadian Journal of Psychology,16, 177–184.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. O’Regan, J. K., &Jacobs, A. M. (1992). Optimal viewing position effect in word recognition: A challenge to current theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,18, 185–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Perry, C., &Ziegler, J. C. (2002). A cross-language computational investigation of the length effect in reading aloud.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,28, 990–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Postman, L., &Adis-Castro, G. (1957). Psychophysical methods in the study of word recognition.Science,125, 193–194.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Rayner, K., Sereno, S. C., &Raney, G. E. (1996). Eye movement control in reading: A comparison of two types of models.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,22, 1188–1200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Richards, L. G., &Heller, F. P. (1976). Recognition thresholds as a function of word length.American Journal of Psychology,89, 455–466.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Richardson, J. T. E. (1976). The effects of stimulus attributes on latency of word recognition.British Journal of Psychology,67, 315–325.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Spieler, D. H., &Balota, D. A. (1997). Bringing computational models of word naming down to the item level.Psychological Science,8, 411–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vitu, F., O’Regan, J. K., &Mittau, M. (1990). Optimal landing position in reading isolated words and continuous text.Perception & Psychophysics,47, 583–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Weekes, B. S. (1997). Differential effects of number of letters on word and nonword naming latency.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,50A, 439–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Whitney, C., &Lavidor, M. (2004). Why word length only matters in the left visual field.Neuropsychologia,42, 1680–1688.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Ziegler, J. C., Perry, C., Jacobs, A. M., &Braun, M. (2001). Identical words are read differently in different languages.Psychological Science,12, 379–384.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Boris New
    • 1
  • Ludovic ferrand
    • 1
  • Christophe pallier
    • 2
  • Marc brysbaert
    • 3
  1. 1.Université René Descartes-Paris 5Boulogne-BillancourtFrance
  2. 2.INSERM, U562 Service Hospitalier Frédéric JoliotOrsayFrance
  3. 3.Royal HollowayUniversity of LondonLondonEngland
  4. 4.Laboratoire de Psychologie ExpérimentaleCNRS et Université René Descartes-Paris 5Boulogne-BillancourtFrance

Personalised recommendations