Advertisement

Perception & Psychophysics

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 189–195 | Cite as

On the role of competing word units in visual word recognition: The neighborhood frequency effect

  • Jonathan Grainger
  • J. Kevin O’regan
  • Arthur M. Jacobs
  • Juan Segui
Article

Abstract

Psychologie Expérimentale, 28 rue Serpente, 75006 Paris, France. Current models of word recognition generally assume that word units orthographically similar to a stimulus word are involved in the visual recognition of this word. We refer to this set of orthographically similar words as an orthographic neighborhood. Two experiments are presented that investigate the ways in which the composition of this neighborhood can affect word recognition. The data indicate that the presence in the neighborhood of at least one unit of higher frequency than the stimulus word itself results in interference in stimulus word processing. Lexical decision latencies (Experiment 1) and gaze durations (Experiment 2) to words with one neighbor of higher frequency were significantly longer than to words without a more frequent neighbor.

Keywords

Word Recognition Lexical Decision Lexical Decision Task Stimulus Word Test Word 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Balota, D. A., &Chumbley, J. I. (1984) Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage.Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Percep non & Performance,10, 340–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbin, Y. (1982). “Cybermétrope”.Un système analogique de traitement du signal pour l’étude en temps réel des mouvements oculaires horizontaux dans des contextes déclairement ambiants variés. Paris University of Paris D.E A. Electronique Instrumentation.Google Scholar
  3. Beauvillain, C., &Grainger, J. (1987). Accessing interlexical homographs: Some limits of a language-selective access.Journal of Memory & Language,26, 658–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker, C. A. (1976). Allocation of attention during visual word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,2, 555–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, G. D. A. (1987). Resolving inconsistency: A computational model of word naming.Journal of Memory & Language,26, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chambers, S. M. (1979). Letter and order information in lexical access.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,18, 225–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coltheart, M., Davelaar, E., Jonasson, J. T., &Besner, D. (1977) Access to the internal lexicon. In S. Domic (Ed.),Attention and performance VI (pp. 535–555). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Forster, K. I. (1976). Accessing the mental lexicon. In R. J. Wales & E. W. Walker (Eds.),New approaches to language mechanisms (pp. 257–287). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  9. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,113, 256–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gordon, B. (1985). Subjective frequency and the lexical decision latency function: Implications for mechanisms of lexical access.Journal of Memory & Language,24, 631–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grainger, J. (1989). How monolingual can a bilingual be: Interlexical interference in bilingual word recognition Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  12. Grainger, J., &Beauvillain, C (1987). Language blocking and lexical access in bilinguals.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,39A, 295–319.Google Scholar
  13. Gunther, H., &Greese, B. (1985). Lexical hermits and the pronunciation of visually presented words.Forschungsberichte des Instituts für Phonetik und Sprachliche Kommunikation des Universität München,21, 25–52.Google Scholar
  14. Havens, L. L., &Foote, W. E. (1963). The effect of competition on visual duration threshold and its independence of stimulus frequency.Journal of Experimental Psychology,65, 6–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Holmes, V., &O’regan, J. K. (1987). Decomposing French words. In J. K. O’Regan & A. Lévy-Schoen (Eds.),Eye movements: From physiology to cognition (pp. 459–466). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  16. Humphreys, G. W., Evett, L. J., Quinlan, P. T., &Besner, D. (1987). Orthographic priming: Qualitative differences between priming from identified and unidentified primes. In M. Coltheart (Ed.),Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 105–125). New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Mcclelland, J. L., &Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1 An account of basic findings.Psychological Review,88, 375–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Morton, J. (1970). A functional model for memory. In D. A. Norman (Ed.),Models of human memory (pp. 203–254). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  19. Neely, J. H. (1977). Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited capacity attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,106, 226–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Norrjs, D. G. (1986). Word recognition: Context effects without priming.Cognition,22, 93–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. O’regan, J. K., &Lévy-Schoen, A. (1987). Eye movement strategy and tactics in word recognition and reading. In M. Coltheart (Ed.),Attention and Performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 363–383) New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. O’regan, J. K., Lévy-Schoen, A., &Jacobs, A. M. (1983). The effect of visibility on eye movement parameters in reading.Perception & Psychophysics,34, 121–138.Google Scholar
  23. O’regan, J. K., Pynte, J., Lévy-Schoen, A., &Brugaillère, B. (1984). Convenient fixation location within isolated words of different length and structure.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,10, 250–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Savin, H. B. (1963). Word frequency effects and errors in the perception of speech.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,35, 200–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Scheerer, E. (1987). Visual word recognition in German. In D. A. Auport, D. Mackay, W. Prinz, & E. Scheerer (Eds.),Language perception and production: Shared mechanisms in listening, speaking, reading and writing (pp. 227–244). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  27. Trésor De La Langue Française. (1971). Nancy, France: C.N.R.S.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan Grainger
    • 2
    • 1
  • J. Kevin O’regan
    • 2
    • 1
  • Arthur M. Jacobs
    • 2
    • 1
  • Juan Segui
    • 2
    • 1
  1. 1.C.N.R.S.ParisFrance
  2. 2.Laboratoire de Psychologie ExpérimentaleRené Deseartes UniversityParisFrance

Personalised recommendations