In defense of abstractionist theories of repetition priming and word identification.

There is a great deal of interest in characterizing the representations and processes that support visual word priming and written word identification more generally. On one view, these phenomena are supported by abstract orthographic representations that map together visually dissimilar exemplars of letters and words (e.g., the letters A/a map onto a common abstract letter code a*). On a second view, orthographic codes consist in a collection of episodic representations of words that interact in such a way that it sometimes looks as if there are abstract codes. Tenpenny (1995) contrasted these general approaches and concluded by endorsing the episodic account, arguing that no evidence demands that we posit abstract orthographic representations. This review reconsiders the evidence and argues that a variety of priming and nonpriming research strongly supports the conclusion that abstract orthographic codes exist and support priming and word identification. On this account, episodic representations are represented separately from abstract orthographic knowledge and contribute minimally to these functions.