Literature DB >> 19130764

Transposed-letter priming effects for close versus distant transpositions.

Manuel Perea1, Jon Andoni Duñabeitia, Manuel Carreiras.   

Abstract

Transposing two internal letters of a word produces a perceptually similar item (e.g., CHOLOCATE being processed as CHOCOLATE). To determine the precise nature of the encoding of letter position within a word, we examined the effect of the number of intervening letters in transposed-letter effects with a masked priming procedure. In Experiment 1, letter transposition could involve adjacent letters (chocloate-CHOCOLATE) and nonadjacent letters with two intervening letters (choaolcte-CHOCOLATE). Results showed that the magnitude of the transposed-letter priming effect--relative to the appropriate control condition--was greater when the transposition involved adjacent letters than when it involved nonadjacent letters. In Experiment 2, we included a letter transposition condition using nonadjacent letters with one intervening letter (cholocate-CHOCOLATE). Results showed that the transposed-letter priming effect was of the same size for nonadjacent transpositions that involved one or two intervening letters. In addition, transposed-letter priming effects were smaller in the two nonadjacent conditions than in the adjacent condition. We examine the implications of these findings for models of visual-word recognition.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19130764     DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169.55.6.384

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Psychol        ISSN: 1618-3169


  13 in total

1.  On the time-course of adjacent and non-adjacent transposed-letter priming.

Authors:  Maria Ktori; Brechtsje Kingma; Thomas Hannagan; Phillip J Holcomb; Jonathan Grainger
Journal:  J Cogn Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2014-08-01

2.  An ERP investigation of orthographic precision in deaf and hearing readers.

Authors:  Gabriela Meade; Jonathan Grainger; Katherine J Midgley; Phillip J Holcomb; Karen Emmorey
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2020-06-24       Impact factor: 3.139

3.  Consonantal overlap effects in a perceptual matching task.

Authors:  Stéphanie Massol; Manuel Carreiras; Jon Andoni Duñabeitia
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-07-02       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  On the Interaction of Letter Transpositions and Morphemic Boundaries.

Authors:  Jay G Rueckl; Anurag Rimzhim
Journal:  Lang Cogn Process       Date:  2010-08-12

5.  Do Morphemes Matter when Reading Compound Words with Transposed Letters? Evidence from Eye-Tracking and Event-Related Potentials.

Authors:  Mallory C Stites; Kara D Federmeier; Kiel Christianson
Journal:  Lang Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2016-08-06       Impact factor: 2.331

6.  The overlap model: a model of letter position coding.

Authors:  Pablo Gomez; Roger Ratcliff; Manuel Perea
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 8.934

7.  Evidence for letter-specific position coding mechanisms.

Authors:  Stéphanie Massol; Jon Andoni Duñabeitia; Manuel Carreiras; Jonathan Grainger
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-07-02       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Letter order is not coded by open bigrams.

Authors:  Sachiko Kinoshita; Dennis Norris
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 3.059

9.  Relative letter-position coding revisited.

Authors:  Joshua Snell; Jonathan Grainger; Martijn Meeter
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2022-01-19

10.  Parafoveal processing of orthographic, morphological, and semantic information during reading Arabic: A boundary paradigm investigation.

Authors:  Ehab W Hermena; Eida J Juma; Maryam AlJassmi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-08-02       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.