Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T14:36:34.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Individual differences in the size of orthographic effects in spoken word recognition: The role of listeners' orthographic skills

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 October 2010

NADYA DICH
NADYA DICH*
Affiliation:
Cornell University
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Nadya Dich, Department of Human Development, Martha Van Rensselaer Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853. E-mail: nld26@cornell.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The goal of this study was to test the hypothesis that the extent to which orthography affects spoken word recognition in literate adults is related to their spelling proficiency. The study included two components: an auditory lexical decision task manipulating orthographic consistency of the stimuli and a spelling test. The results replicated previously found effects of orthographic consistency on the accuracy and latency of lexical decisions. The size of the orthographic effect in the auditory task was estimated for each participant. The variability in the orthographic effect size among participants was partially explained by their spelling skills. Possible interpretations of this finding and methodological implications for future research are discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , January 2011 , pp. 169 - 186
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX Lexical Database (Release 2) [CD]. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Tweedie, F. J., & Schreuder, R. (2002). The subjects as a simple random effect fallacy: Subject variability and morphological family effects in the mental Lexicon. Brain and Language, 81, 55–65.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2004). Statistics in psycholinguistics: A critique of some current gold standards. In Libben, G. & Nault, K. (Eds.), Mental lexical working papers I (pp. 1–45). Edmonton: University of Alberta.Google Scholar
Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Neely, J. H., Nelson, D., Simpson, G. B., et al. (2002). The English Lexicon Project: A web-based repository of descriptive and behavioral measures for 40,481 English words and nonwords. St. Louis, MO: Washington University. Retrieved from http://elexicon.wustl.eduGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2007). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 4.6.21) [Computer program]. Retrieved September 10, 2008, from http://www.praat.org/Google Scholar
Bruck, M. (1992). Persistence of dyslexics’ phonological awareness deficits. Developmental Psychology, 28, 874–86.Google Scholar
Castles, A., Holmes, V. M., Neath, J., & Kinoshita, S. (2003). How does orthographic knowledge influence performance on phonological awareness tasks? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 445–467.Google Scholar
Castles, A., Holmes, V. M., & Wong, M. (1997). Variations in spelling style among lexical and sublexical readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 64, 98–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chereau, C., Gaskell, M. G., & Dumay, N. (2007). Reading spoken words: Orthographic effects in auditory priming. Cognition, 102, 341–360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goswami, U. (1999). Towards a theoretical framework for understanding reading development and dyslexia in different orthographies. In Lundberg, I., Austad, I., & Tonnessen, F. (Eds.), Dyslexia: Advances in theory and practice (pp. 101–116). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, L., & Rovine, M. J. (2007). Multilevel models for the experimental psychologist: Foundations and illustrative examples. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 101–117.Google Scholar
Juul, H. (2005). Knowledge of context sensitive spellings as a component of spelling competence: Evidence from Danish. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 249–265.Google Scholar
Kent University Ohio Literacy Resource Center. (2008). English is soup! Retrieved February 12, 2008, from http://literacy.kent.edu/Midwest/Materials/ndakota/soup/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Kessler, B., & Treiman, R. (2001). Relationships between sounds and letters in English monosyllables. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 592–617.Google Scholar
Kreiner, D. S., & Gough, P. B. (1990). Two ideas about spelling: Rules and word-specific memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 103–118.Google Scholar
Kučera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
Pattamadilok, C., Perre, L., Dufau, S., & Ziegler, J. C. (2009). On-line orthographic influences on spoken language in a semantic task. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 169–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perre, L., & Ziegler, J. C. (2008). On-line activation of orthography in spoken word recognition. Brain Research, 1188, 123–138.Google Scholar
Perry, C., & Ziegler, J. C. (2004). Beyond the two-strategy model of skilled spelling: Effects of consistency, grain size, and orthographic redundancy. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 57, 325–356.Google Scholar
Pinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M. (2000). Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS (Statistics and Computing Series). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute. (1989–2007). JMP, Version 7 [Computer program]. Cary, NC: Author.Google Scholar
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime user's guide. Sharpsburg, PA: Psychology Software Tools, Inc.Google Scholar
Shankweiler, D., Lundquist, E., Dreyer, L. G., & Dickinson, C. C. (1996). Reading and spelling difficulties in high school students: Causes and consequences. Reading and Writing, 8, 267–294.Google Scholar
Taft, M., Castles, A., Davis, C., Lazendic, G., & Ngyen-Hoan, M. (2008). Automatic activation of orthography in spoken word recognition: Pseudohomograph priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 366–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treiman, R., & Kessler, B. (2006). Spelling as statistical learning: Using consonantal context to spell vowels. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 642–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ventura, P., Morais, J., & Kolinsky, R. (2007). The development of the orthographic consistency effect in speech recognition: From sublexical to lexical involvement. Cognition, 105, 547–576.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ziegler, J. C., & Ferrand, L. (1998). Orthography shapes the perception of speech: The consistency effect in auditory word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 683–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, J. C., & Muneaux, M. (2007). Orthographic facilitation and phonological inhibition in spoken word recognition: A developmental study. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 14, 75–80.Google Scholar
Ziegler, J. C., Muneaux, M., & Grainger, J. (2003). Neighborhood effects in auditory word recognition: Phonological competition and orthographic facilitation. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 779–793.Google Scholar
Ziegler, J. C., Petrova, A., & Ferrand, L. (2008). Feedback consistency effects in visual and auditory word recognition: Where do we stand after more than a decade? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 643–661.Google ScholarPubMed
Ziegler, J. C., Stone, G. O., & Jacobs, A. M. (1997). What is the pronunciation for -ough and the spelling for /u/? A database for computing feedforward and feedback consistency in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 29, 600–618.Google Scholar