In Experiment 1, university students classified on lexical expertise on the basis of spelling plus nonword pronunciation accuracy made lexical decisions to homophones and control words. Homophones were accepted as words more slowly than control words, but lexical experts showed a smaller homophone cost than the less skilled group. In Experiment 2, similarly classified groups showed a large difference in their ability to detect homophones, with the low-expertise group showing a yes bias to high-frequency words, and having difficulty detecting homophones when mate-frequency was low. The results suggest superior use of orthography in the lexical experts and more reliance on semantic information in nonexperts, and support the importance of facility with orthography–phonology mappings in lexical expertise.
AdelmanJ. S., BrownG. D. A., & QuesadaJ. F. (2006). Contextual diversity, not word frequency, determines word-naming and lexical decision times. Psychological Science, 17(9), 814–823. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01787.x
2.
AndrewsS. (2012). Individual differences in skilled visual word recognition and reading: The role of lexcial quality. In AdelmanJ. S. (Ed.), Visual word recognition (Vol. 2, pp. 151–172). Hove, England: Psychology Press.
3.
AndrewsS. (2015). Individual differences amiong skilled readers: The role of lexical quaility. In PollatsekA. & TreimanR. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of reading (pp. 129–138). New York: Oxford University Press.
4.
AndrewsS., & BondR. (2009). Lexical expertise and reading skill: Bottom-up and top-down processing of lexical ambiguity. Reading and Writing, 22(6), 687–711. doi:10.1007/s11145-008-9137-7
5.
AndrewsS., & HerschJ. (2010). Lexical precision in skilled readers: Individual differences in masked neighbor priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(2), 299–318. doi:10.1037/a0018366
6.
AndrewsS., & LoS. (2012). Not all skilled readers have cracked the code: Individual differences in masked form priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(1), 152–163. doi:10.1037/a0024953
7.
BaayenR. H., DavidsonD. J., & BatesD. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
8.
BarrD. J., LevyR., ScheepersC., & TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
9.
BowersJ. S., ViglioccoG., & HaanR. (1998). Orthographic, phonological, and articulatory contributions to masked letter and word priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(6), 1705–1719. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.24.6.1705
10.
BoweyJ. A. (1995). Socioeconomic status differences in preschool phonological sensitivity and first-grade reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 476–487. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.87.3.476
11.
BradleyL., & BryantP. (1985). Rhyme and reason in reading and spelling. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
12.
BrownP., LupkerS. J., & ColomboL. (1994). Interacting sources of information in word naming: A study of individual differences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(3), 537–554. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.20.3.537
13.
BruckM., TreimanR., CaravolasM., GeneseeF., & CassarM. (1998). Spelling skills of children in whole language and phonics classrooms. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19(4), 669–684.
14.
BurtJ. S. (2006). Spelling in adults: The combined influences of language skills and reading experience. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35(5), 447–470. doi:10.1007/s10936-006-9024-9
15.
BurtJ. S., & FuryM. B. (2000). Spelling in adults: The role of reading skills and experience. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 13(1–2), 1–30. doi:10.1023/A:1008071802996
16.
BurtJ. S., & HeffernanM. E. (2012). Reading and spelling in adults: Are there lexical and sub-lexical subtypes?Journal of Research in Reading, 35(2), 183–203. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01455.x
17.
CastlesA., HolmesV. M., & WongM. (1997). Variations in spelling style among lexical and sublexical readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 64, 98–118. doi:10.1006/jecp.1996.2339
18.
ChateauD., & JaredD. (2000). Exposure to print and word recognition process. Memory & Cognition, 28(1), 143–153.
19.
ColtheartM., RastleK., PerryC., LangdonR., & ZieglerJ. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108(1), 204–256. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.1.204
20.
CunninghamA. E., & StanovichK. E. (1990). Assessing print exposure and orthographic processing skill in children: A quick measure of reading experience. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 733–740. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.733
21.
CunninghamA. E., & StanovichK. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 934–945. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.934
22.
EdwardsJ. D., PexmanP. M., & HudsonC. E. (2004). Exploring the dynamics of the visual word recognition system: Homophone effects in LDT and naming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19(4), 503–532.
23.
EhriL. C., NunesS. R., StahlS. A., & WillowsD. M. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel's meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 393–447. doi:10.3102/00346543071003393
24.
FerrandL., & GraingerJ. (2003). Homophone interference effects in visual word recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 56(3), 403–419.
25.
FischerF. W., ShankweilerD., & LibermanI. Y. (1985). Spelling proficiency and sensitivity to word structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 24(4), 423–441. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(85)90038-5
26.
GernsbacherM. A., & FaustM. E. (1991). The mechanism of suppression: A component of general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17(2), 245–262.
27.
GrahamS., & HebertM. (2011). Writing to read: A meta-analysis of the impact of writing and writing instruction on reading. Harvard Educational Review, 81(4), 710–744.
28.
GrahamS., & SantangeloT. (2014). Does spelling instruction make students better spellers, readers, and writers? A meta-analytic review. Reading and Writing, 27(9), 1703–1743. doi:10.1007/s11145-014-9517-0
29.
GraingerJ., & FerrandL. (1994). Phonology and orthography in visual word recognition: Effects of masked homophone primes. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(2), 218–233. doi:10.1006/jmla.1994.1011
30.
GraingerJ., & JacobsA. M. (1996). Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model. Psychological Review, 103(3), 518–565. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.103.3.518
31.
GraingerJ., & ZieglerJ. (2008). Cross-code consistency in a functionlal architecture for word recognition. In BrogorenkoE. L. & NaplesA. J. (Eds.), Single word reading: Behavioral and biological perspectives (pp. 129–157). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32.
GreenD. M., & SwetsJ. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: John Wiley.
33.
HarmM. W., & SeidenbergM. S. (2004). Computing the meanings of words in reading: Cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes. Psychological Review, 111(3), 662–720.
34.
HartL., & PerfettiC. A. (2008). Learning words in Zekkish: Implications for understanding lexical representation. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
35.
HerschJ., & AndrewsS. (2012). Lexical quality and reading skill: Bottom-up and top-down contributions to sentence processing. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(3), 240–262. doi:10.1080/10888438.2011.564244
36.
HinoY., KusunoseY., LupkerS. J., & JaredD. (2013). The processing advantage and disadvantage for homophones in lexical decision tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(2), 529–551. doi:10.1037/a0029122
37.
HolmesV. M. (1996). Skilled reading and orthographic processing. Australian Journal of Psychology, 48, 149–154. doi:10.1080/00049539608259522
38.
JaredD., LevyB. A., & RaynerK. (1999). The role of phonology in the activation of word meanings during reading: Evidence from proofreading and eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128(3), 219–264.
39.
JaredD., & SeidenbergM. S. (1991). Does word identification proceed from spelling to sound to meaning?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 358–394.
40.
KerswellL., SiakalukP. D., PexmanP. M., SearsC. R., & OwenW. J. (2007). Homophone effects in visual word recognition depend on homophone type and task demands. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 61(4), 322–327.
KimJ., TaftM., & DavisC. (2004). Orthographic-phonological links in the lexicon: When lexical and sublexical information conflict. Reading and Writing, 17(1–2), 187–218. doi:10.1023/B:READ.0000013805.77364.cd
43.
LewellenM. J., GoldingerS. D., PisoniD. B., & GreeneB. G. (1993). Lexical familiarity and processing efficiency: Individual differences in naming, lexical decision, and semantic categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(3), 316–330.
44.
LundbergI., FrostJ., & PetersonO.-P. (1988). Effects of an extensive program for stimulating phonological awareness in preschool children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 263–284. doi:10.1598/RRQ.23.3.1
45.
MacmillanN. A., & CreelmanC. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user's guide. Mhawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
46.
ManisF. R., SeidenbergM. S., DoiL. M., McBride ChangC., & PetersenA. (1996). On the bases of two subtypes of development dyslexia. Cognition, 58(2), 157–195. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(95)00679-6
47.
NewmanR. L., JaredD., & HaighC. A. (2012). Does phonology play a role when skilled readers read high-frequency words? Evidence from ERPs. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(9), 1361–1384. doi:10.1080/01690965.2011.603932
48.
NorrisD. (2006). The Bayesian reader: Explaining word recognition as an optimal Bayesian decision process. Psychological Review, 113(2), 327–357. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.113.2.327
49.
OuelletteG. (2010). Orthographic learning in learning to spell: The roles of semantics and type of practice. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 107(1), 50–58. doi:10.1075/wll.8.2.04nel
50.
PerfettiC. A. (1992). The representation problem in reading acquisition. In GoughP., EhriL. & TreimanR. (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 145–174). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
51.
PerfettiC. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357–383. doi:10.1080/10888430701530730
52.
PerfettiC. A., BeckI., BellL., & HughesC. (1987). Phonemic knowledge and learning to read are reciprocal: A longitudinal study of first grade children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 283–319.
53.
PerfettiC. A., & HartL. (2001). The lexical basis of comprehension skill. In GorfeinD. S. (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity. (pp. 67–87). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
54.
PerfettiC. A., & HartL. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. In VerhoevenL. T., ElbroC., & ReitsmaP., (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp. 189–213). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Publishers.
55.
PexmanP. M., LupkerS. J., & JaredD. (2001). Homophone effects in lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(1), 139–156.
56.
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 Cognition, 28(3), 572–584. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.28.3.572
57.
R Development Core Team. (2011). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org
58.
RastleK., & BrysbaertM. (2006). Masked phonological priming effects in English: Are they real? Do they matter?Cognitive Psychology, 53(2), 97–145.
59.
RuecklJ. G., & SeidenbergM. S. (2009). Computational modeling and the neural bases of reading and reading disorders. In McCardleK. P. P. (Ed.), How children learn to read: Current issues and new directions in the integration of cognition, neurobiology and genetics of reading and dyslexia research and practice (pp. 101–133). New York, NY, US: Psychology Press.
SearsC. R., 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 Research, 37(4), 269–291.
62.
Shahar-YamesD., & ShareD. L. (2008). Spelling as a self-teaching mechanism in orthographic learning. Journal of Research in Reading, 31(1), 22–39.
63.
ShareD. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55(2), 151–218. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)00645-2
64.
StanislawH., & TodorovN. (1999). Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 31(1), 137–149. doi:10.3758/BF03207704
65.
StanovichK. E., & CunninghamA. E. (1992). Studying the consequences of literacy within a literate society: The cognitive correlates of print exposure. Memory and Cognition, 20, 51–68.
66.
StanovichK. E., & WestR. F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(4), 402–433. doi:10.2307/747605
67.
TaftM. (1984). Evidence for an abstract lexical representation of word structure. Memory & Cognition, 12(3), 264–269. doi:10.3758/BF03197674
68.
UnsworthS. J., & PexmanP. M. (2003). The impact of reader skill on phonological processing in visual word recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology Section A, 56, 63–81.
69.
Van OrdenG. C. (1987). A ROWS is a ROSE: Spelling, sound, and reading. Memory & Cognition, 15(3), 181–198. doi:10.3758/BF03197716
70.
VellutinoF. R. (1994). The increasingly inextricable relationship between orthographic and phonological coding in learning to read: Some reservations about current methods of operationalizing orthographic coding. In BerningerV. W. (Ed.), The varieties of orthographic knowledge, 2: Relationships to phonology, reading, and writing (pp. 47–111). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
71.
WilkinsonG. S. (1993). The wide range achievement test administration manual. Wilmington, DE: Wide Range.
