This work aimed to investigate grapheme coding during sub-lexical processing and lexical access. Using the letter detection task in Experiment 1, we compared letter pairs that could be considered as a grapheme unit or not depending on context (referred to as weakly cohesive complex, e.g., an in chant vs cane) to real two-letter graphemes (highly cohesive complex, e.g., au in chaud) and single-letter graphemes (simple, e.g., a in place). Three experimental conditions were used, one of which was designed to prevent phonological influences. Data revealed that only highly cohesive complex graphemes were processed as units, not the weakly cohesive ones. The same pattern was found across experimental conditions in favor of an orthographic mechanism. In Experiments 2 and 3, a primed lexical decision task was used with two stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) and two different ranges of lexical frequency. We manipulated the number of graphemes removed from partial primes (d**che vs do**he-DOUCHE) and relatedness. In contrast to Experiment 1, no evidence was provided in favor of a role of graphemes during lexical access. We suggest that graphemes can be conceived as sub-lexical orthographic units per se but can only be captured within a sub-lexical route to reading.
BolgerP.BorgwaldtS. R.JakabE. (2009). Letter and grapheme perception in English and Dutch. Written Language and Literacy, 12, 116–139.
2.
BrandM.GirouxI.PuijalonC.ReyA. (2007). Syllable onsets are perceptual reading units. Memory and Cognition, 35, 966–973.
3.
CarreirasM.VergaraM.PereaM. (2007). ERP correlates of transposed-letter similarity effects: Are consonants processed differently from vowels?Neuroscience Letters, 419, 219–224.
4.
ChetailF.BalotaD.TreimanR.ContentA. (2014). What can megastudies tell us about the orthographic structure of English words?The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 1519–1540.
5.
ChetailF.ContentA. (2012). The internal structure of chaos: Letter category determines visual word perceptual units. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 371–388.
6.
ColtheartM.RastleK.PerryC.LangdonR.ZieglerJ. (2001). DRC: A Dual Route Cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108, 204–256.
7.
CommissaireE.DuncanL. G.CasalisS. (2014). Grapheme coding in L2: How do L2 learners process new graphemes?Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26, 725–739.
8.
ConradM.CarreirasM.JacobsA. M. (2008). Contrasting effects of token and type syllable frequency in lexical decision. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 296–326.
9.
DavisC. J. (2010). The spatial coding model of visual word identification. Psychological Review, 117, 713–758.
10.
DavisC. J.BowersJ. S. (2006). Contrasting five different theories of letter position coding: Evidence from orthographic similarity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 535–557.
11.
De MoorW.BrysbaertM. (2000). Neighborhood-frequency effects when primes and targets are of different lengths. Psychological Research, 63, 159–162.
12.
DehaeneS.CohenL.SigmanM.VinckierF. (2005). The neural code for written words: A proposal. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 335–341.
13.
DiependaeleK.ZieglerJ. C.GraingerJ. (2010). Fast phonology and the bimodal interactive activation model. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22, 764–778.
14.
DuñabeitiaJ. A.CarreirasM. (2011). The relative position priming effect depends on whether letters are vowels or consonants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1143–1163.
15.
FerrandL.GraingerJ. (1992). Phonology and orthography in visual word recognition: Evidence from masked non-word priming. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45A, 353–372.
16.
FerrandL.GraingerJ. (1993). The time-course of phonological and orthographic code activation in the early phases of visual word recognition. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31, 119–122.
GómezP.RatcliffR.PereaM. (2008). The overlap model: A model of letter position coding. Psychological Review, 115, 577–601.
19.
GraingerJ. (2008). Cracking the orthographic code: An introduction. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 1–35.
20.
GraingerJ.DufauS.ZieglerJ. C. (2016). A vision of reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 171–179.
21.
GraingerJ.GranierJ. P.FarioliF.van AsscheE.van HeuvenW. (2006). Letter position information and printed word perception: The relative-position priming constraint. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 865–884.
22.
GraingerJ.HolcombP. J. (2009). Watching the word go by: On the time-course of component processes in visual word recognition. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 128–156.
23.
GraingerJ.van HeuvenW. (2003). Modeling letter position coding in printed word perception. In BoninP. (Ed.), The mental lexicon (pp. 1–24). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
24.
GraingerJ.ZieglerJ. C. (2011). A dual-route approach to orthographic processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 54.
25.
GrossJ.TreimanR.InmanJ. (2000). The role of phonology in a letter detection task. Memory & Cognition, 28, 349–357.
26.
JoubertS. A.LecoursA. R. (2000). The role of sublexical graphemic processing in reading. Brain Language, 72, 1–13.
27.
KnightD.MuncerS. J. (2011). Type and token bigram frequencies for two-through nine-letter words and the prediction of anagram difficulty. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 491–498.
28.
LupkerS. J.AchaJ.DavisC. J.PereaM. (2012). An investigation of the role of grapheme units in word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 1491–1516.
29.
LupkerS. J.PereaM.DavisC. J. (2008). Transposed letter priming effects: Consonants, vowels and letter frequency. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 93–116.
30.
MarinusE.de JongP. F. (2008). The use of sublexical clusters in normal and dyslexic readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 253–280.
31.
MarinusE.de JongP. F. (2010). Variability in the word reading performance of dyslexics: Effects of word length and digraph presence. Cortex, 46, 1259–1271.
32.
MarinusE.de JongP. F. (2011). Dyslexic and typical-reading children use vowel digraphs as perceptual units in reading. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 504–516.
33.
McClellandJ. L.RumelhartD. E. (1981). An Interactive Activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88(5), 375–407.
34.
NewB.NazziT. (2014). The time course of consonant and vowel processing during word recognition. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 147–157.
35.
NewB.PallierC.FerrandL.MatosR. (2001). Une base de données lexicales du français contemporain sur internet: Lexique. L’année Psychologique [Lexique: an online lexical database of contemporary French], 101, 447–462.
36.
PeeremanR.ContentA. (1999). LexOP: A lexical database with Orthography-Phonology statistics for French monosyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31, 376–379.
37.
PereaM.AchaJ. (2009). Does letter position coding depend on consonant/vowel status? Evidence with the masked priming technique. Acta Psychologica, 130, 127–137.
38.
PereaM.CarreirasM. (2006). Do transposed-letter similarity effects occur at a prelexical phonological level?The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1600–1613.
39.
PereaM.CarreirasM. (2008). Do orthotactics and phonology constrain the transposed-letter effect?Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 69–92.
40.
PereaM.LupkerS. J. (2004). Can CANISO activate CASINO? Transposed-letter similarity effects with nonadjacent letter positions. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 231–246.
41.
PerryC.ZieglerJ. C.ZorziM. (2007). Nested incremental modeling in the development of computational theories: The CDP+ model of reading aloud. Psychological Review, 114, 273–315.
42.
PerryC.ZieglerJ. C.ZorziM. (2010). Beyond single syllables: Large-scale modeling of reading aloud with the Connectionist Dual Process (CDP++) model. Cognitive Psychology, 61, 106–151.
43.
PerryC.ZieglerJ. C.ZorziM. (2013). A computational and empirical investigation of graphemes in reading. Cognitive Science, 37, 800–828.
44.
PerryC.ZieglerJ. C.ZorziM. (2014). CDP++.Italian: Modelling sublexical and supralexical inconsistency in a shallow orthography. PLoS ONE, 9(4), e94291.
45.
RastleK.ColtheartM. (1998). Whammies and double whammies: The effect of length on non-word reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 277–282.
46.
ReggiaJ.MarslandP.BerndtR. (1988). Competitive dynamics in a dual-route connectionist model of print-to-sound transformation. Complex Systems, 2, 509–547.
47.
ReyA.JacobsA. M.Schmidt-WeigandF.ZieglerJ. C. (1998). A phoneme effect in visual word recognition. Cognition, 68, 41–50.
48.
ReyA.SchillerN. O. (2005). Graphemic complexity and multiple print-to-sound associations in visual word recognition. Memory and Cognition, 33, 76–85.
49.
ReyA.ZieglerJ. C.JacobsA. M. (2000). Graphemes are perceptual reading units. Cognition, 75, 1–12.
50.
SchmalzX.PorshnevA.MarinusE. (2016). Two distinct parsing stages in nonword reading aloud: Evidence from Russian. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 2548–2559.
51.
SpinelliE.KandelS.GuerassimovitchH.FerrandL. (2012). Graphemic cohesion effect in reading and writing complex graphemes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 770–791.
52.
Van AsscheE.GraingerJ. (2006). A study of relative-position priming with superset primes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 32, 399–415.
53.
Van HeuvenW.DijkstraT.GraingerJ.SchriefersH. (2001). Shared neighborhood effects in masked orthographic priming. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 96–101.
54.
Vergara-MartínezM.PereaM.MarínA.CarreirasM. (2011). The processing of consonants and vowels during letter identity and letter position assignment in visual-word recognition: An ERP study. Brain & Language, 118, 105–117.
55.
WestburyC.BuchananL. (2002). The probability of the least likely non-length-controlled bigram affects lexical decision reaction times. Brain and Language, 81, 66–78.
56.
WhitneyC. (2001). How the brain encodes the order of letters in a printed word: The SERIOL model and selective literature review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 221–243.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
