It has been suggested that acronyms like BBC are processed like real words. This claim has been based on improved performance with acronyms in the Reicher–Wheeler task, the letter string matching task, the visual feature integration task, and the N400 component in event-related potential (ERP) studies. Unfortunately, in all these tasks performance on acronyms resembled performance on pseudowords more than performance on words. To further assess the similarity of acronyms and words, we focused on the meaning of the acronyms and used masked priming to examine whether target words can be primed to the same extent with associatively related acronyms as with associatively related words. Such priming was possible at a stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) of 84 ms. In addition, the priming of the acronyms did not depend on the letter case in which they were presented: The target word “books” was primed as much by isbn and iSbN as by ISBN.
AlamedaJ. R.CuetosF.BrysbaertM. (2003). The number 747 is named faster after seeing Boeing than after seeing Levi's: Associative priming in the processing of multidigit Arabic numerals.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology56A, 1009–1019.
2.
BesnerD. (1983). Basic decoding components in reading: Two dissociable feature extraction processes.Canadian Journal of Psychology37, 429–438.
3.
BesnerD. (1984). Specialized processors subserving visual word recognition: Evidence for local control.Canadian Journal of Psychology38, 94–101.
4.
BesnerD.DavelaarE.AlcottD.ParryP. (1984). Wholistic reading of alphabetic print: Evidence from the FDM and the FBI.Orthographies and reading: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, neuropsychology and linguistics. HendersonL.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5.
BuenoS.Frenck-MestreC. (2008). The activation of semantic memory: Effects of prime exposure, prime–target relationship, and task demands.Memory & Cognition36, 882–898.
6.
CarrT. H.PosnerM. I.PollatsekA.SnyderC. R. R. (1979). Orthography and familiarity effects in word processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General108, 389–414.
7.
ColtheartM. (1978). Lexical access in simple reading tasks.Strategies of information processing. UnderwoodG.London: Academic Press151–216.
8.
DriegheD.BrysbaertM. (2002). Strategic effects in associative priming with words, homophones, and pseudohomophones.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition28, 951–961.
9.
ForsterK. I. (1998). The pros and cons of masked priming.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research27, 203–233.
10.
ForsterK. I.ForsterJ. C. (2003). A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers35, 116–124.
11.
GibsonE. J.BishopC. H.SchiffW.SmithJ. (1964). Comparison of meaningfulness and pronounceability as grouping principles in the perception and rentention of verbal material.Journal of Experimental Psychology67, 173–182.
12.
HallD. A.HumphreysG. W.CooperA. C. G. (2001). Neuropsychological evidence for case-specific reading: Multi-letter units in visual word recognition.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology54A, 439–467.
13.
HendersonL. (1974). A word superiority effect without orthographic assistance.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology20, 301–311.
14.
HendersonL.ChardJ. (1976). On the nature of the facilitation of visual comparisons by lexical membership.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society7, 432–434.
15.
HutchisonK. A. (2003). Is semantic priming due to association strength or feature overlap? A microanalytic review.Psychonomic Review & Bulletin10, 785–813.
16.
JamesC. (2004). A connection is made: Masked associative priming using abbreviationsEgham, UK: University of London Unpublished 3rd-year project. Royal Holloway.
17.
KinoshitaS.LupkerS. J. (2003). Masked priming: State of the artHove, UK: Psychology Press.
18.
KissG. R.ArmstrongC.MilroyR.PiperJ. (1973). An associative thesaurus of English and its computer analysis.The computer and literary studies. AitkenA. J.BaileyR. W.Hamilton-SmithN.Edinburgh, UK: University Press.
19.
LaszloS.FedermeierK. D. (2007a). The acronym superiority effect.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review14, 1158–1163.
20.
LaszloS.FedermeierK. D. (2007b). Better the DVL you know: Acronyms reveal the contribution of familiarity to single word reading.Psychological Science18, 122–126.
21.
LaszloS.FedermeierK. D. (2008). Minding the PS, queues, and PXQs: Uniformity of semantic processing across multiple stimulus types.Psychophysiology45, 458–466.
22.
LucasM. (2000). Semantic priming without association: A meta-analytic review.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review7, 618–630.
23.
LukatelaG.TurveyM. T. (1994). Visual lexical access is initially phonological. 1. Evidence from associative priming by words, homophones, and pseudohomophones.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General123, 107–128.
24.
McRaeK.BoisvertS. (1998). Automatic semantic similarity priming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition24, 558–572.
25.
NoiceH.HockH. S. (1987). A word superiority effect with nonorthographic acronyms: Testing for unitized visual codes.Perception & Psychophysics42, 485–490.
26.
PereaM.RosaE. (2002). The effects of associative and semantic priming in the lexical decision task.Psychological Research66, 180–194.
27.
PrinzmetalW.Millis-WrightM. (1984). Cognitive and linguistic factors affect visual feature integration.Cognitive Psychology16, 305–340.
28.
RaynerK.McConkieG. W.ZolaD. (1980). Integrating information across eye movements.Cognitive Psychology12, 206–226.
29.
SeymourP. H.JackM. V. (1978). Effects of visual familiarity on “same” and “different” decision processes.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology30, 455–469.
30.
SlatteryT. J.PollatsekA.RaynerK. (2006). The time course of phonological and orthographic processing of acronyms in reading: Evidence from eye movements.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review13, 412–417.
31.
StallerJ. D.LappinJ. S. (1981). Visual detection of multi-letter patterns.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance7, 1258–1272.
32.
TzurB.FrostR. (2007). SOA does not reveal the absolute time course of cognitive processing in fast priming experiments.Journal of Memory and Language56, 321–335.
