Testing for lexical competition during reading: Fast priming with orthographic neighbors.

2010 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 477-492 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariko Nakayama ◽  
Christopher R. Sears ◽  
Stephen J. Lupker
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Competition ◽  
Orthographic Neighbors

The Sound of Enemies and Friends in the Neighborhood

2011 ◽  
Vol 58 (6) ◽  
pp. 454-463 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane Pecher ◽  
Inge Boot ◽  
Saskia van Dantzig ◽  
Carol J. Madden ◽  
David E. Huber ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Word Recognition ◽  
Visual Word Recognition ◽  
Neighborhood Effects ◽  
Classification Performance ◽  
Visual Word ◽  
Orthographic Neighborhood ◽  
Semantic Classification ◽  
Semantic Class ◽  
Orthographic Neighbors ◽  
Target Words

Previous studies (e.g., Pecher, Zeelenberg, & Wagenmakers, 2005) found that semantic classification performance is better for target words with orthographic neighbors that are mostly from the same semantic class (e.g., living) compared to target words with orthographic neighbors that are mostly from the opposite semantic class (e.g., nonliving). In the present study we investigated the contribution of phonology to orthographic neighborhood effects by comparing effects of phonologically congruent orthographic neighbors (book-hook) to phonologically incongruent orthographic neighbors (sand-wand). The prior presentation of a semantically congruent word produced larger effects on subsequent animacy decisions when the previously presented word was a phonologically congruent neighbor than when it was a phonologically incongruent neighbor. In a second experiment, performance differences between target words with versus without semantically congruent orthographic neighbors were larger if the orthographic neighbors were also phonologically congruent. These results support models of visual word recognition that assume an important role for phonology in cascaded access to meaning.

Lateralization of lexical processing in monolinguals and bilinguals

2021 ◽  
pp. 136700692110188
Author(s):  
Filiz Mergen ◽  
Gulmira Kuruoglu
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Processing ◽  
Response Times ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Decision Task ◽  
Bilingual Speakers ◽  
Visual Hemifield ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Brain Correlates ◽  
Orthographic Neighbors

Aims and objectives: This study aims to investigate how lexical processing (LP) is organized in early Turkish–English bilinguals and Turkish monolinguals. Methodology: We used a visual hemifield paradigm where bilingual ( n = 48) and monolingual ( n = 53) participants performed a lexical decision task. Bilingual participants performed the task in both their languages. Data and analysis: We recorded response times (RTs) and the accuracy rates (ARs) of the participants. An analysis of variance and t-test were run to analyze the bilingual and monolingual data, respectively. Findings: The results obtained from the analysis of the RTs and ARs for the Turkish and English words showed a balanced hemispheric organization in LP in bilingual speakers. The RTs for Turkish words in the monolingual group provided supportive evidence for the predominant role of the left hemisphere in LP. However, no significant difference was found in the accuracy of their answers, suggesting that the monolingual participants’ performance was not influenced by visual field of presentation of the words. Finally, the comparison of the two groups revealed that bilingual participants’ performance was inferior to monolinguals’ in speed and accuracy of processing of words presented in both visual fields. This result gives further support for the differential representation of LP in monolinguals and bilinguals. Originality: The psycholinguistic literature abounds with studies of LP in bilinguals and monolinguals from a variety of language backgrounds; however, there is much less data regarding the brain correlates of LP in Turkish–English bilinguals and Turkish monolinguals. Implications: Since Turkish–English bilinguals and Turkish monolinguals are underrepresented in the literature as compared to the population who speak other languages with alphabetic writing, this study provides preliminary data for future studies. Limitations: We did not control for gender or lexical factors such as orthographic neighbors when designing the word sets used as stimuli.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document