In visual word recognition, words with many phonological neighbours are processed more rapidly than are those with few neighbours. The research reported here tested whether the distribution of phonological neighbours across phoneme positions influences lexical decisions. The results indicate that participants responded more rapidly to words where all phoneme positions can be changed to form a neighbour than they did to those where only a limited number of phoneme positions can be changed to form a neighbour. It is argued that this distribution effect arises because of differences between the two groups of words in how they overlap with their neighbours.
AdelmanJ. S.BrownG. D. A. (2007). Phonographic neighbors, not orthographic neighbors, determine word naming latencies.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review14, 455–459.
2.
AdelmanJ. S.BrownG. D. A.QuesadaJ. F. (2006). Contextual diversity, not word frequency, determines word-naming and lexical decision times.Psychological Science17, 814–823.
3.
AndrewsS. (1992). Frequency and neighborhood effects on lexical access: Lexical similarity or orthographic redundancy?.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition18, 234–254.
4.
BalotaD. A.YapM. J.CorteseM. J.HutchisonK. A.KesslerB.LoftisB. (2007). The English Lexicon Project.Behavior Research Methods39, 445–459.
5.
ColtheartM.RastleK.PerryC.LangdonR.ZieglerJ. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud.Psychological Review108, 204–256.
6.
DavisC. J. (2005). N-Watch: A program for deriving neighborhood size and other psycholinguistic statistics.Behavior Research Methods37, 65–70.
7.
GraingerJ.MuneauxM.FarioliF.ZieglerJ. C. (2005). Effects of phonological and orthographic neighbourhood density interact in visual word recognition.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology58, 981–998.
8.
GraingerJ.ZieglerJ. C. (2007). Cross-code consistency in a functional architecture for word recognition.Single-word reading: Behavioral and biological perspectives. GrigorenkoE. L.NaplesA. J.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates129–157.
9.
JohnsonN. F.PughK. R. (1994). A cohort model of visual word recognition.Cognitive Psychology26, 240–346.
10.
KesslerB.TreimanR.MullennixJ. (2007). Feedback-consistency effects in single-word reading.Single-word reading: Behavioral and biological perspectives. GrigorenkoE. L.NaplesA. J.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates159–174.
11.
KuceraH.FrancisN. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American EnglishProvidence, RI: Brown University Press.
12.
LundK.BurgessC. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers28, 203–208.
13.
MulattiC.ReynoldsM. G.BesnerD. (2006). Neighborhood effects in reading aloud: New findings and new challenges for computational models.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance32, 799–810.
14.
PexmanP. M.LupkerS. J.RegginL. D. (2002). Phonological effects in visual word recognition: Investigating the impact of feedback activation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition28, 572–584.
15.
PughK. R.RexerK.KatzL. (1994a). Evidence of flexible coding in visual word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance20, 807–825.
16.
PughK. R.RexerK.PeterM.KatzL. (1994b). Neighborhood effects in visual word recognition: Effects of letter delay and nonword context difficulty.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition20, 639–648.
17.
RastleK.BrysbaertM. (2006). Masked phonological priming effects in English: Are they real? Do they matter?.Cognitive Psychology53, 97–145.
18.
RastleK.HarringtonJ.ColtheartM. (2002). 358,534 nonwords: The ARC nonword database.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology55, 1339–1362.
19.
RastleK.HarringtonJ.ColtheartM.PalethorpeS. (2000). Reading aloud begins when the computation of phonology is complete.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance26, 1178–1191.
SearsC.HinoY.LupkerS. J. (1995). Neighborhood size and neighborhood frequency effects in word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance21, 876–900.
22.
SearsC.HinoY.LupkerS. J. (1999). Orthographic neighbourhood effects in parallel distributed processing models.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology53, 220–230.
23.
SearsC.SiakalukP. D.ChowV. C.BuchananL. (2008). Is there an effect of print exposure on the word frequency effect and the neighborhood size effect?.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research37, 269–291.
24.
VitevitchM. S. (2007). The spread of the phonological neighborhood influences spoken word recognition.Memory & Cognition35, 166–175.
25.
YapM. J.BalotaD. A.TseC.-S.BesnerD. (2008). On the additive effects of stimulus quality and word frequency in lexical decision: Evidence for opposing interactive influences revealed by RT distributional analyses.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition34, 495–513.
26.
YarkoniT.BalotaD.YapM. (2008). Moving beyond Coltheart's N: A new measure of orthographic similarity.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review15, 971–979.
27.
YatesM. (2005). Phonological neighbors speed visual word processing: Evidence from multiple tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition31, 1385–1397.
28.
YatesM.FriendJ.PloetzD. M. (2008). Phonological neighbors influence word naming through the least supported phoneme.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance34, 1599–1608.
29.
YatesM.LockerL. J.SimpsonG. B. (2004). The influence of phonological neighborhood on visual word perception.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review11, 452–457.
