Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 683–689 | Cite as

Orthography shapes the perception of speech: The consistency effect in auditory word recognition

  • Johannes C. ZieglerEmail author
  • Ludovic Ferrand
Brief Reports


Inconsistency in the spelling-to-sound mapping hurts visual word perception and reading aloud (i.e., the traditional consistency effect). In the present experiment, we found a consistency effect in auditory word perception: Words with phonological rimes that could be spelled in multiple ways produced longer auditory lexical decision latencies and more errors than did words with rimes that could be spelled only one way. This finding adds strong support to the claim that orthography affects the perception of spoken words. This effect was predicted by a model that assumes a coupling between orthography and phonology that is functional in both visual and auditory word perception.


Word Recognition Lexical Decision Visual Word Lexical Decision Task Consistency Effect 
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.


  1. Coltheart, M. (1978). Lexical access in simple reading tasks. In G. Underwood (Ed.),Strategies of information processing (pp. 151–216). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Coltheart, M., Curtis, B., Atkins, P., &Haller, M. (1993). Models of reading aloud: Dual-route and parallel-distributed-processing approaches.Psychological Review,100, 589–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Content, A., Mousty, P., &Radeau, M. (1990). BRULEX: Une base de données lexicales informatisée pour le Français écrit et parlé.Année Psychologique,90, 551–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dijkstra, T., Roelofs, A., &Fieuws, S. (1995). Orthographic effects on phoneme monitoring.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,49, 264–271.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Donnenwerth-Nolan, S., Tanenhaus, M. K., &Seidenberg, M. S. (1981). Multiple code activation in word recognition: Evidence from rhyme monitoring.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,7, 170–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ehri, L. C. (1984). How orthography alters spoken language competencies in children learning to read and spell. In J. Downing & R. Valtin (Eds.),Language awareness and learning to read (pp. 119–147). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  8. Ferrand, L., &Grainger, J. (1992). Phonology and orthography in visual word recognition: Evidence from masked nonword priming.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,42A, 353–372.Google Scholar
  9. Ferrand, L., &Grainger, J. (1993). The time course of orthographic and phonological code activation in the early phases of visual word recognition.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,31, 119–122.Google Scholar
  10. Ferrand, L., &Grainger, J. (1996). List context effects on masked phonological priming in the lexical decision task.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,3, 515–519.Google Scholar
  11. Frauenfelder, U. H., Segui, J., &Dijkstra, T. (1990). Lexical effects in phonemic processing: Facilitatory or inhibitory?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,16, 77–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frost, R., &Katz, L. (1989). Orthographic depth and the interaction of visual and auditory processing in word recognition.Memory & Language,17, 302–310.Google Scholar
  13. Frost, R., Repp, B. H., &Katz, L. (1988). Can speech perception be influenced by simultaneous presentation of print?Journal of Memory & Language,27, 741–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frost, S. J.,Fowler, C. A., &Rueckl, J. G. (1998).Bidirectional consistency: Effects of phonology common to speech and reading. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Glushko, R. J. (1979). The organization and activation of orthographic knowledge in reading aloud.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,5, 674–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goldinger, S. D. (1996). Auditory lexical decision.Language & Cognitive Processes,11, 559–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grainger, J., &Ferrand, L. (1994). Phonology and orthography in visual word recognition: Effects of masked homophone primes.Journal of Memory & Language,33, 218–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grainger, J., &Ferrand, L. (1996). Masked orthographic and phonological priming in visual word recognition and naming: Cross-task comparisons.Journal of Memory & Language,35, 623–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grainger, J., &Jacobs, A. M. (1996). Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model.Psychological Review,103, 518–565.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Jacobs, A. M., Rey, A., Ziegler, J. C., &Grainger, J. (1998). MROM-P: An interactive activation, multiple read-out model of orthographic and phonological processes in visual word recognition. In J. Grainger & A. M. Jacobs (Eds.)Localist connectionist approaches to human cognition (pp. 147–188). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Jakimik, J., Cole, R. A., &Rudnicky, A. I. (1985). Sound and spelling in spoken word recognition.Journal of Memory & Language,24, 165–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jared, D., McRae, K., &Seidenberg, M. S. (1990). The basis of consistency effects in word naming.Journal of Memory & Language,29, 687–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1987). Functional parallelism in spoken word recognition.Cognition,25, 71–102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. McClelland, J. L., &Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception.Cognitive Psychology,18, 1–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Norris, D. (1994). SHORTLIST: A connectionist model of continuous speech recognition.Cognition,52, 189–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Peereman, R., Content, A., &Bonin, P. (1998). Is perception a twoway street? The case of feedback consistency in visual word recognition.Journal of Memory and Language,39, 151–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Seidenberg, M. S., &McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed developmental model of word recognition and naming.Psychological Review,96, 523–568.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Seidenberg, M. S., &Tanenhaus, M. K. (1979). Orthographic effects on rhyme monitoring.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,5, 546–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Seidenberg, M. S., Waters, G. S., Barnes, M. A., &Tanenhaus, M. K. (1984). When does irregular spelling or pronunciation influence word recognition?Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,23, 383–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stone, G. O., Vanhoy, M. D., &Van Orden, G. C. (1997). Perception is a two-way street: Feedforward and feedback phonology in visual word recognition.Journal of Memory & Language,36, 337–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stone, G. O., &Van Orden, G. C. (1994). Building a resonance framework for word recognition using design and system principles.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,20, 1248–1268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Treiman, R., &Cassar, M. (1997). Can children and adults focus on sound as opposed to spelling in a phoneme counting task?Developmental Psychology,33, 771–780.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Van Orden, G. C., &Goldinger, S. D. (1994). Interdependence of form and function in cognitive systems explains perception of printed words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,20, 1269–1291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Van Orden, G. C., Jansen op de Haar, M. A., &Bosman, A. M. T. (1997). Complex dynamic systems also predict dissociations, but they do not reduce to autonomous components.Cognitive Neuropsychology,14, 131–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van Orden, G. C., Pennington, B. F., &Stone, G. O. (1990). Word identification in reading and the promise of subsymbolic psycholinguistics.Psychological Review,97, 488–522.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Zecker, S. G. (1991). The orthographic code: Developmental trends in reading-disabled and normally-achieving children.Annals of Dyslexia,41, 178–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ziegler, J. C., &Jacobs, A. M. (1995). Phonological information provides early sources of constraint in the processing of letter strings.Journal of Memory & Language,34, 567–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ziegler, J. C., Jacobs, A. M., &Stone, G. O. (1996). Statistical analysis of the bidirectional inconsistency of spelling and sound in French.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,28, 504–515.Google Scholar
  41. Ziegler, J. C., Montant, M., &Jacobs, A. M. (1997). The feedback consistency effect in lexical decision and naming.Journal of Memory & Language,37, 533–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ziegler, J. C., Stone, G. O., &Jacobs, A. M. (1997). What’s the pronunciation for -ough and the spelling for /u /? A database for computing feedforward and feedback consistency in English.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,29, 600–618.Google Scholar
  43. Ziegler, J. C., Van Orden, G. C., &Jacobs, A. M. (1997). Phonology can help or hurt the perception of print.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,23, 845–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Behavioural SciencesMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.CNRSAix-en-ProvenceFrance
  3. 3.CNRS and Université René DescartesParisFrance

Personalised recommendations