Regularity effects in word naming: what are they?

In a word-naming experiment, word-body consistency was crossed with grapheme-to-phoneme regularity to test predictions of current models of word recognition. In the latency and error data, a clear effect of consistency was observed, with the influence of regularity somewhat weaker. In addition, simu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Memory & Cognition Vol. 28; no. 8; pp. 1269 - 1277
Autores principales: Cortese, Michael J., Simpson, Greg B.
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Springer Science & Business Media B.V. December 2000
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=513044346&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ssf
    uiTerm: 513044346
    longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson)
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        0090502X
        MEG
      jtl: Memory & Cognition
      issn: 0090502X
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: December 2000
      vid: 28
      iid: 8
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Science & Business Media B.V.
    artinfo:
      ui: 513044346
      ppf: 1269
      ppct: 8
      formats:
      tig:
        atl: Regularity effects in word naming: what are they?
      aug:
        au:
          Cortese, Michael J.
          Simpson, Greg B.
      su:
        Word recognition
        English language pronunciation
        English language
        Phonemics
      sug:
        subj:
          Word recognition
          English language pronunciation
          English language
          Phonemics
      ab: In a word-naming experiment, word-body consistency was crossed with grapheme-to-phoneme regularity to test predictions of current models of word recognition. In the latency and error data, a clear effect of consistency was observed, with the influence of regularity somewhat weaker. In addition, simulation data from three contemporary models of word recognition were obtained for the stimuli used in the experiment in order to compare the models' latencies with those of humans. The simulations showed that the human latency data are most consistent with the parallel-distributed-processing model of Plaut, McClelland, Seidenberg, and Patterson (1996), less so with the dual-process model (Zorzi, Houghton, & Butterworth, 1998), and least so with the dual-route-cascaded model (Coltheart & Rastle, 1994). Reprinted by permission of the publisher.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: N
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N