Abstract
Phonological and orthographic aspects of a letter string were found to affect the identification of a component letter in three experiments. All involved a fixed set of target vowels presented in a fixed position in letter strings. Manipulations of the phonological nature of the target or the orthographic character of the string were made by adding a letter with the postexposure mask to the original CVC trigram. In Experiment 1, the addition of an E with the mask as a final letter to the string changed the pronunciation of the target vowel, whereas the addition of an S did not. Identification accuracy was higher with the S mask. In Experiment 2, either E or D could be added to CVCs that were equally orthographic but differentially pronounceable. The same added letter had quite different effects on accuracy, depending on its effect on target pronunciation and the orthographic regularity of the string. In Experiment 3, performance on targets in orthographic CVCs was lowered to the level of nonorthographic CVCs by adding a letter that rendered the entire string nonorthographic. The results are explained by assuming that phonological and graphemic codes are developed simultaneously but maintained in a nonindependent manner.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Reference Notes
McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E.An interactive activation model of the effect of context in perception, Part 1 (Report No. 8002). San Diego: University of California, San Diego, Center for Human Information Processing, 1980.
Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L.An interactive activation model of the effect of context in perception, Part II (Report No. 8003). San Diego: University of California, San Diego, Center for Human Information Processing, 1980.
References
Baron, J., &Thurston, I. An analysis of the word-superiority effect.Cognitive Psychology, 1973,4, 207–228.
Bjork, E. L., &Estes, W. K. Letter identification in relation to linguistic context and masking conditions.Memory & Cognition, 1973,1, 217–223.
Chambers, S. M., &Forster, K. I. Evidence for lexical access in a simultaneous matching task.Memory & Cognition, 1975,3, 549–559.
Fries, C. C.Linguistics and reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1963.
Gibson, E. J., Pick, A., Osser, H., &Hammond, M. The role of grapheme-phoneme correspondence in the perception of words.American Journal of Psychology, 1962,75, 554–570.
Gibson, E. J., Shurclifk, A., &Yonas, A. Utilization of spelling patterns by deaf and hearing subjects. In H. Levin & J. P. Williams (Eds.),Basic studies on reading. New York: Basic Books, 1970.
Hawkins, H. L., Reicher, G. M., Rogers, M., &Peterson, L. Flexible coding in word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1976,2, 380–385.
Johnston, J. C. A test of the sophisticated guessing theory of word perception.Cognitive Psychology, 1978,10, 123–153.
Juola, J. F., Leavitt, D. D., &Choe, C. S. Letter identification in word, nonword, and single letter displays.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1974,4, 178–180.
Krueger, L. E. Familiarity effects in visual information processing.Psychological Bulletin, 1975,82, 949–974. (a)
Krueger, L. E. The word-superiority effect: Is its locus visualspatial or verbal?Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1975,6, 465–468. (b)
Krueger, L. E., &Shapiro, R. G. Letter detection with rapid serial visual presentation: Evidence against word superiority at feature extraction.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1979,5, 657–673.
Manelis, L. The effect of meaningfulness in tachistoscopic word perception.Perception & Psychophysics, 1974,16, 183–192.
Massaro, D. W. Perception of letters, words, and nonwords.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973,100, 349–353.
Massaro, D. W. Letter information and orthographic context in word perception.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1979,5, 595–609.
Mcclelland, J. L. Preliminary letter identification in the perception of words and nonwords.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1976,2, 80–91.
Mcclelland, J. L., &Johnston, J. C. The role of familiar units in perception of words and nonwords.Perception & Psychophysics, 1977,22, 249–261.
Paap, K. R., &Newsome, S. L. Do small visual angles produce a word superiority effect or differential lateral masking?Memory & Cognition, 1980,8, 1–14.
Paivio, A. Perceptual comparisons through the mind’s eye.Memory & Cognition, 1975,3, 635–647.
Paivio, A. Dual coding: Theoretical issues and empirical evidence. In J. M. Scandura & C. J. Brainerd (Eds.),Structural/process models of complex human behavior. Leiden, The Netherlands: Nordhoff, 1978.
Pollatsek, A., Well, A. D., &Schindler, R. M. Familiarity affects visual processing of words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1975,1, 328–338.
Purcell, D. G., Stanovich, K. E., &Spector, A. Visual angle and the word superiority effect.Memory & Cognition, 1978,6, 3–8.
Rumelhart, D. E., &Siple, P. Process of recognizing tachistoscopically presented words.Psychological Review, 1974,81, 99–118.
Singer, M. H. The primacy of visual information in the analysis of letter strings.Perception & Psychophysics, 1980,27, 153–162.
Spoehr, K. T. Phonological encoding in visual word recognition.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal behavior, 1978,17, 127–141.
Spoehr, K. T., &Smith, E. E. The role of syllables in perceptual processing.Cognitive Psychology, 1973,5, 71–89.
Spoehr, K. T., &Smith, E. E. The role of orthographic and phonotactic rules in perceiving letter patterns.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1975,1, 21–34.
Stanovich, K. E. Studies of letter identification using qualitative error analysis: Effects of speed stress, tachistoscopic presentation, and word context.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1979,5, 713–733.
Thompson, M. C., &Massaro, D. W. Visual information and redundancy in reading.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973,98, 49–54.
Wheeler, D. D. Processes in word recognition.Cognitive Psychology, 1970,1, 59–85.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chastain, G. Phonological and orthographic factors in the word-superiority effect. Memory & Cognition 9, 389–397 (1981). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197564
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197564