Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 405–414 | Cite as

When parallel processing in visual word recognition is not enough: New evidence from naming

Brief Reports
  • 379 Downloads

Abstract

Low-frequency irregular words are named more slowly and are more error prone than low-frequency regular words (the regularity effect). Rastle and Coltheart (1999) reported that this irregularity cost is modulated by the serial position of the irregular grapheme-phoneme correspondence, such that words with early irregularities exhibit a larger cost than words with late ones. They argued that these data implicate rule-based serial processing, and they also reported a successful simulation with a model that has a rule-based serial component—the DRC model of reading aloud (Coltheart, Rastle, Perry, Langdon, & Ziegler, 2001). However, Zorzi (2000) also simulated these data with a model that operates solely in parallel. Furthermore, Kwantes and Mewhort (1999) simulated these data with a serial processing model that has no rules for converting orthography to phonology. The human data reported by Rastle and Coltheart therefore neither require a serial processing account, nor successfully discriminate among a number of computational models of reading aloud. New data are presented wherein an interaction between the effects of regularity and serial position of irregularity is again reported for human readers. The DRC model simulated this interaction; no other implemented computational model does so. The present results are thus consistent with rule-based serial processing in reading aloud.

Supplementary material

Roberts-PBR-2003.zip (11 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 340 KB.

References

  1. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., &Van Rijn, H. (1993).The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
  2. Coltheart, M., &Rastle, K. (1994). Serial processing in reading aloud: Evidence for dual-route models of reading.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,20, 1197–1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fowler, C. A. (1979). “Perceptual centers” in speech production and perception.Perception & Psychophysics,25, 375–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kawamoto, A. H., &Kello, C. T. (1999). Effect of onset cluster complexity in speeded naming: A test of rule-based approaches.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,25, 361–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kawamoto, A. H., Kello, C. T., Jones, R., &Bame, K. (1998). Initial phoneme versus whole-word criterion to initiate pronunciation: Evidence based on response latency and initial phoneme duration.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,24, 862–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kwantes, P. J., &Mewhort, D. J. K. (1999). Modeling lexical decision and word naming as a retrieval process.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,53, 306–315.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Paap, K. R., &Noel, R. W. (1991). Dual route models of print to sound: Still a good horse race.Psychological Research,53, 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., &Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains.Psychological Review,103, 56–115.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Raaijmakers, J. G. W., Schrijnemakers, J. M. C., &Gremmen, F. (1999). How to deal with “the language-as-fixed-effect fallacy”: Common misconceptions and alternative solutions.Journal of Memory & Language,41, 416–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rastle, K., &Coltheart, M. (1999). Serial and strategic effects in reading aloud.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,25, 482–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rastle, K., &Davis, M. H. (2002). On the complexities of measuring naming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,28, 307–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rastle, K., Harrington, J., Coltheart, M., &Palethorpe, S. (2000). Reading aloud begins when the computation of phonology is complete.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,26, 1178–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schneider, W. (1988). Micro Experimental Laboratory: An integrated system for IBM PC compatibles.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,20, 206–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Treiman, R., Mullennix, J., Bijeljac-Babic, R., &Richmond-Welty, E. D. (1995). The special role of rimes in the description, use, and acquisition of English orthography.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,124, 107–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Van Selst, M., &Jolicoeur, P. (1994). A solution to the effect of sample size on outlier elimination.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,47A, 631–650.Google Scholar
  17. Zorzi, M. (2000). Serial processing in reading aloud: No challenge for a parallel model.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,26, 847–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Zorzi, M., Houghton, G., &Butterworth, B. (1998). Two routes or one in reading aloud? A connectionist dual-process model.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,24, 1131–1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.Macquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations