Abstract
In five experiments, in which subjects were to identify a target word as it was gradually clarified, we manipulated the target's frequency of occurrence in the language and its neighborhood size—the number of words that can be constructed from a target word by changing one letter, while preserving letter position. In Experiments 1–4, visual identification performance to screen-fragmented words was measured. In Experiments 1 and 2, we used the ascending method of limits, whereas Experiments 3 and 4 presented a fixed-level fragment. In Experiment 1, there was no relation between overall accuracy and neighborhood size for-words-between three and six letters in length. However, more errors of commission (guesses) were made for high-neighborhood words and more errors of omission (blanks) were made for low-neighborhood words. Letter errors within guesses occurred at serial positions having many neighbors, and these positions were also likely to contain consonants rather than vowels. In Experiment 2, a smallfacilitatory effect of neighborhood size on bothhigh- and low-frequency words was found. In contrast, in Experiments 3 and 4, using the same set of words,inhibitory effects of neighborhood size, but only for low-frequency words, were found. Experiment 5, using a speeded identification task, showed results parallel to those of Experiments 3 and 4. We suggest that whether neighborhood effects are facilitatory or inhibitory depends on whether feedback allows subjects to disconfirm initial hypotheses that the target is a high-frequency neighbor.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Andrews, S. (1989). Frequency and neighborhood effects on lexical access: Activation or search.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 802–814.
Andrews, S. (1992). Frequency and neighborhood effects on lexical access: Lexical similarity or orthographic redundancy?Journal of Lxperimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 234–254.
Atkinson, R. C., &Juola, J. F. (1974). Search and decision processes in recognition memory. In D. H. Krantz, R. C. Atkinson, R. D. Luce, & P. Suppes (Eds.),Contemporary developments in mathematical psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 243–293). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
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 Perception & Performance,10, 340–357.
Carroll, J. B., Davies, P., &Richman, B. (1971).The American Heritage word frequency book. New York: American Heritage.
Coltheart, M., Davelaar, E., Jonasson, J. T., &Besner, D. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. In S. Dornic (Ed.),Attention and performance VI (pp. 535–555). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Feustel, T. C., Shiferin, R. M., &Salasoo, A. (1983), Episodic and lexical contributions to the repetition effect in word identification.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,112. 309–346.
Forster, K. I. (1976). Accessing the mental lexicon. In R. J. Wales & E. Walker (Eds.),New approaches in language mechanisms (pp. 257–287). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Forster, K. I. (1987). Form priming with masked primes: The best match hypothesis. In M. Coltheart (Ed.),Attention and performance XII (pp. 201–219). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Glushko, R. J. (1979). The organization and activation of orthographic knowledge in reading aloud.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,5, 674–691.
Goldinger, S. D., Luce, P. A., &Pisoni, D. B. (1989). Priming lexical neighbors of spoken words: Effects of competition and inhibition.Journal of Memory & Language,38, 501–518.
Grainger, J. (1990). Word frequency and neighborhood frequency effects in lexical decision and naming.Journal of Memory & Language,29, 228–244.
Grainger, J., O'Regan, J. K., Jacoas, A. M., &Seoul, J. (1989). On the role of competing word units in visual word recognition: The neighborhood frequency effect.Perception & Psychophysics,45, 189–195.
Grainger, J., &Segui, J. (1990). Neighborhood frequency effects in visual word recognition: A comparison of lexical decision and masked identification latencies.Perception & Psychophysics,47, 191–198.
Gumbel, E. J. (1958).Statistics of extremes. New York: Columbia University Press.
Howes, D. H., &Solomon, R. L. (1951). Visual duration threshold as a function of word probability.Journal of Experimental Psychology,41, 401–410.
Jacoby, L. L., &Dallas, M. (1981). On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,110, 306–340.
Kčera, H., &Francis, W. N. (1967).Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Landauer, T. K., &Streeter, L. A. (1973). Structural differences between common and rare words: Failure of equivalence assumptions for theories of word recognition.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,12, 119–131.
Laxon, V. J., Coltheart, V., &Keating, C. (1988). Children find friendly words friendly too: Words with many orthographic neighbors are easier to read and spell.British Journal of Educational Psvchology.58. 103–119.
Luce, P. A. (1986).Neighborhoods of words in the mental lexicon (Research on speech perception Tech. Rep. No. 6). Bloomington: Indiana University, Speech Research Laboratory, Psychology Department.
Luce, P. A., Pisoni, D. B., &Goldinger, S. D. (1990). Similarity neighborhoods of spoken words. In G. T. M. Altmann (Ed.),Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives (pp. 122–147). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Luo, C. R.. & Snodgrass, J. G. (1993).What factors affect perceptual interference? Manuscript submitted for publication.
Mcclelland, J. L., &Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Pt. 1. An account of basic findings.Psychological Review,88, 375–405.
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. Coltheart (Ed.).Attention and performance XII: The psychology of rending (pp. 223–243). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
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.
Rumelhart, D. E., &Mcclelland, J. L. (1982). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Pt. 2. The contextual enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of the model.Psychological Review,89, 60–94.
Snodgrass, J. G. (1991, November).Perceptual fluency and recognition memory—What's the connection? Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychonomic Society, San Francisco.
Snodgrass, J. G., &Hirshman, E. (1991). Theoretical explorations of the Bruner-Potter (1964) interference effect.Journal of Memory & Language,30, 273–293.
Snodgrass, J. G., &Poster, M. (1992). Visual-word recognition thresholds for screen-fragmented names of the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures.Behavior Research Methods, instruments, & Computers,24, 1–15.
Snodgrass, J. G., &Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for naming agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,6, 174–215.
Taraban, R., &McClelland, J. L. (1987). Conspiracy effects in word pronunciation.Journal of Memory & Language,26, 608–631.
Tulving, E., Schacter, D., &Stark, H. (1982). Priming effects in word-fragment completion are independent of recognition memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,8, 336–342.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by research grants AFOSR 89-0442 and F49620-92-J-0l 19 from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research to the first author.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Snodgrass, J.G., Mintzer, M. Neighborhood effects in visual word recognition: Facilitatory or inhibitory?. Mem Cogn 21, 247–266 (1993). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202737
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202737