link.springer.com

The word-superiority effect and phonological recoding - Memory & Cognition

  • ️Krueger, Lester E.
  • ️Sun Nov 01 1992

References

  • Banks, W. P., Oka, E., &Shugarman, S. (1981). Recoding of printed words to internal speech: Does recoding come before lexical access? In O. J. L. Tzeng & H. Singer (Eds.),Perception of print: Reading research in experimental psychology (pp. 137–170). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, J., &Thurston, I. (1973). An analysis of the word-superiority effect.Cognitive Psychology,4, 207–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chastain, G. (1981). Phonological and orthographic factors in the wordsuperiority effect.Memory & Cognition,9, 389–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chastain, G. (1987). Visually-presented letter strings typically are encoded phonologically: Some converging evidence.Journal of General Psychology,114, 147–156.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Corcoran, D. W. J. (1966). An acoustic factor in letter cancellation.Nature,210, 658.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Corcoran, D. W. J. (1967). Acoustic factors in proof reading.Nature,214, 851–852.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Corcoran, D. W. J., &Weening, D. L. (1968). Acoustic factors in visual search.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.20, 83–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Drewnowski, A., &Healy, A. F. (1982). Phonetic factors in letter detection: A reevaluation.Memory & Cognition,10, 145–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gielen, I., Brysbaert, M., &Dhondt, A. (1991). The syllable-length effect in number processing is task-dependent.Perception & Psychophysics,50, 449–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, H. B., &Healy, A. F. (1985). Detection errors in a task with articulatory suppression: Phonological recoding and reading.Memory & Cognition,13, 463–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanna, P. R., Hanna, J. S., Hodges, R. E., &Rudorf, E. H., Jr. (1966).Phoneme-grapheme correspondences as cues to spelling improvement (Bureau of Research, Office of Education). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, H. L., Reicher, G. M., Rogers, M., &Peterson, L. (1976). Flexible coding in word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,2, 380–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, L. (1973). Effects of letter-names on visual search.Cognitive Psychology,5, 90–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, L. (1975). Do words conceal their component letters? A critique of Johnson (1975) on the visual perception of words.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,14, 648–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, G. W., &Evett, L. J. (1985). Are there independent lexical and nonlexical routes in word processing? An evaluation of the dual-route theory of reading.Behavioral& Brain Sciences,8, 689–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, N. F., Allen, P. A., &Strand, T. L. (1989). On the role of word frequency in the detection of component letters.Memory & Cognition,17, 474–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, J. C. (1981). Effects of advance precuing of alternatives on the perception of letters alone and in words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,7, 560–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, J. C.,&McClelland, J. L. (1973). Visual factors in word perception.Perception & Psychophysics,14, 365–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, L. E. (1970a). The effect of acoustic confusability on visual search.American Journal of Psychology,83, 389–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, L. E. (1970b). Search time in a redundant visual display.Journal of Experimental Psychology,83, 391–399.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, L. E. (1970c). Visual comparison in a redundant display.Cognitive Psychology,1, 341–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, L. E. (1975a). Familiarity effects in visual information processing.Psychological Bulletin,82, 949–974.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, L. E. (1975b). The word-superiority effect: Is its locus visualspatial or verbal?Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,6, 465–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, L. E., &Shapiro, R. G. (1979), Letter detection with rapid serial visual presentation: Evidence against word superiority at featare extraction.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,5, 657–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, L. E., &Stadtlander, L. M. (1991). Detection of letter repetition in words and nonwords: The effect of opposite-case distractors.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,17, 942–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kučera, H., &Francis, W. N. (1967).Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massaro, D. W. (1979). Letter information and orthographic context in word perception.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,5, 595–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massaro, D. W., Venezky, R. L., &Taylor, G. A. (1979). Orthographic regularity, positional frequency, and visual processing of letter strings.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,108, 107–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayzner, M. S., &Tresselt, M. E. (1965). Tables of single-letter and digram frequency counts for various word-length and letter-position combinations.Psychonomic Monograph Supplements,1, 13–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayzner, M. S., Tresselt, M. E., &Wolin, B. R. (1965). Tables of trigram frequency counts for various word-length and letter-position combinations.Psychonomic Monograph Supplements,1, 33–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCusker, L. X., Hillinger, M. L., &Bias, R. G. (1981). Phonological recoding and reading.Psychological Bulletin,89, 217–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prinzmetal, W., Hoffman, H., &Vest, K. (1991). Automatic processes in word perception: An analysis from illusory conjunctions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,17, 902–923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prinzmetal, W., Treiman, R., &Rho, S. H. (1986). How to see a reading unit.Journal of Memory & Language,25, 461–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Read, J. D. (1983). Detection of Fs in a Single statement: The role of phonetic recoding.Memory & Cognition,11, 390–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reicher, G. M. (1969). Perceptual recognition as a function of meaningfulness of stimulus material.Journal of Experimental Psychology,81, 275–280.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, H. G., Hornak, R., &Sanders, E. (1978). The effects of graphemic, phonetic, and semantic relationships on access to lexical structures.Memory & Cognition,6, 115–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, M. H. (1980). The primacy of visual information inthe analysis of letter strings.Perception & Psychophysics,27, 153–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spoehr, K. T. (1978). Phonological encoding in visual word recognition.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,17, 127–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spoehr, K. T., &Smith, E. E. (1973). The role of syllables in perceptual processing.Cognitive Psychology,5, 71–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, M. C., &Massaro, D. W. (1973). Visual information and redundancy in reading.Journal of Experimental Psychology,98, 49–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Orden, O. C., Pennington, B. F., &Stone, G. O. (1990). Word identification in reading and the promise of subsymbolic psycholinguistics.Psychological Review,97, 488–522.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Venezky, R. L., &Massaro, D. W. (1987). Orthographic structure and spelling-sound regularity in reading English words. In A. Allport, D. MacKay, W. Prinz,& E. Scheerer (Eds.),Language perception and production: Shared mechanisms in listening, speaking, reading and writing (pp. 159–179). London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references