There are now a number of reports in the literature that transposed letter (TL) priming effects emerge when two consonants are transposed (e.g., caniso-CASINO) but not when two vowels are transposed (e.g., cinaso-CASINO). In the present article, four masked priming lexical decision experiments, two in Italian and two in English, are reported in which TL priming effects involving the transposition of two adjacent consonants (e.g., atnenna-ANTENNA) were contrasted with those involving the transposition of a vowel and an adjacent consonant (e.g., anetnna-ANTENNA), a contrast not directly examined in the previous literature. In none of the experiments was there any indication that the priming effects were different sizes for the two types of transpositions, including Experiment 4 in which a sandwich priming paradigm was used. These results support the assumption of most orthographic coding models that the consonant–vowel status of the letters is not relevant to the nature of the orthographic code. The question of how to reconcile these results with other TL manipulations investigating vowel versus consonant transpositions is discussed.
AdelmanJ. S. (2011). Letters in time and retinotopic space. Psychological Review, 118, 570–582. doi:10.1037/a0024811
2.
AndrewsS. (1996). Lexical retrieval and selection processes: Effects of transposed-letter confusability. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 775–800. doi:10.1006/jmla.1996.0040
3.
BaayenR. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511801686
4.
BaayenR.DavidsonD.BatesD. (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
5.
BaayenR.PiepenbrockR.van RijnH. (1993). The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.
6.
BalotaD.AschenbrennerA.YapM. (2013). Additive effects of word frequency and stimulus quality: The influence of trial history and data transformations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1563–1571. doi:10.1037/a0032186
7.
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
8.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01
9.
BerentI.PerfettiC. A. (1995). A rose is a REEZ: The two-cycles model of phonology assembly in reading English. Psychological Review, 102, 146–184. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.1.146
10.
BlytheH. I.JohnsonR. L.LiversedgeS. P.RaynerK. (2014). Reading transposed text: Effects of transposed letter distance and consonant-vowel status on eye movements. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76, 2424–2440. doi:10.3758/s13414-014-0707-2
BuchwaldA.RappB. (2003). The orthographic representation of consonant–vowel status: Evidence from two cases of acquired dysgraphia. Brain and Language, 87, 120–121. doi:10.1016/s0093-934x(03)00228-1
13.
BuchwaldA.RappB. (2006). Consonants and vowels in orthographic representations. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 23, 308–337. doi:10.1080/02643290442000527
14.
CaramazzaA.ChialantD.CapassoR.MiceliG. (2000). Separable processing of consonants and vowels. Nature, 403, 428–430. doi:10.1038/35000206
15.
CaramazzaA.MiceliG. (1990). The structure of graphemic representations. Cognition, 37, 243–297. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(90)90047-n
16.
CarreirasM.Gillon-DowensM.VergaraM.PereaM. (2009). Are vowels and consonants processed differently? Event-related potential evidence with a delayed letter paradigm. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 275–288.
17.
CarreirasM.VergaraM.PereaM. (2007). ERP correlates of transposed-letter similarity effects: Are consonants processed differently from vowels?Neuroscience Letters, 419, 219–224. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2007.04.053
18.
CarreirasM.VergaraM.PereaM. (2009). ERP correlates of transposed-letter priming effects: The role of vowels versus consonants. Psychophysiology, 46, 34–42. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2008.00725.x
19.
ChambersS. M. (1979). Letter and order information in lexical access. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 225–241. doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(79)90136-1
20.
ChetailF.ContentA. (2012). The internal structure of chaos: Letter category determines visual word perceptual units. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 371–388. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.07.004
21.
ChetailF.ContentA. (2013). Segmentation of written words in French. Language and Speech, 56, 125–144. doi:10.1177/0023830912442919
22.
ChetailF.ContentA. (2014). What is the difference between OASIS and OPERA? Roughly five pixels: Orthographic structure biases the perceived length of letter strings. Psychological Science, 25, 243–249. doi:10.1177/0956797613500508
23.
ChetailF.DrabsV.ContentA. (2014). The role of consonant/vowel organization in perceptual discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 938–961. doi:10.1037/a0036166
24.
ChetailF.RanziniM.De TiègeX.WensV.ContentA. (2018). The consonant/vowel pattern determines the structure of orthographic representations in the left fusiform gyrus. Cortex, 101, 73–86. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2018.01.006
25.
Cohen-ShikoraE. R.SuhJ.BuggJ. M. (2018). Assessing the temporal learning account of the list-wide proportion congruence effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/xlm0000670
26.
ColomboL. (2000). The assembly of phonology in Italian and English: Consonants and vowels. In KennedyA.RadachR.HellerD.PynteJ. (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process (pp. 377–398). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland. doi:10.1016/b978-008043642-5/50018-8
27.
ColomboL.SulpizioS.PeressottiF. (2017). Serial mechanism in transposed letters effects: A developmental study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 161, 46–62. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2017.04.002
28.
ColomboL.ZorziM.CubelliR.BrivioC. (2003). The status of consonants and vowels in phonological assembly: Testing the two-cycles model with Italian. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 15, 405–433. doi:10.1080/09541440303605
29.
ColtheartM.DavelaarE.JonassonJ. F.BesnerD. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. In DornicS. (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp. 535–555). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30.
ComesañaM.SoaresA. P.MarcetA.PereaM. (2016). On the nature of consonant/vowel differences in letter position coding: Evidence from developing and adult readers. British Journal of Psychology, 107, 651–674. doi:10.1111/bjop.12179
31.
DavisC. J. (2003). Factors underlying masked priming effects in competitive network models of visual word recognition. In KinoshitaS.LupkerS. J. (Eds.), Masked priming: The state of the art (pp. 121–170). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. doi:10.4324/9780203502846
32.
DavisC. J. (2010). The spatial coding model of visual word identification. Psychological Review, 117, 713–758. doi:10.1037/a0019738
33.
DavisC. J.LupkerS. J. (2017). A backwards glance at words: Using reversed-interior masked primes to test models of visual word identification. PLoS ONE, 12, e0189056. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0189056
34.
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. doi:10.1037/a0023577
35.
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. doi:10.1080/02724989208250619
36.
FerrandL.GraingerJ. (1993). The time course of orthographic and phonological code activation in the early phases of visual word recognition. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31, 119–122. doi:10.3758/bf03334157
37.
ForsterK. I.DavisC. (1984). Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 680–698. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.10.4.680
38.
ForsterK. I.DavisC.SchoknechtC.CarterR. (1987). Masked priming with graphemically related forms: Repetition or partial activation?The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39A, 211–251. doi:10.1080/14640748708401785
39.
ForsterK. I.ForsterJ. C. (2003). DMDX: A windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116–124. doi:10.3758/bf03195503
FrankishC.BarnesL. (2008). Lexical and sublexical processes in the perception of transposed-letter anagrams. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 381–391. doi:10.1080/17470210701664880
42.
FrankishC.TurnerE. (2007). SIHGT and SUNOD: The role of orthography and phonology in the perception of transposed letter anagrams. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 189–211. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.11.002
43.
GómezP.RatcliffR.PereaM. (2008). The overlap model: A model of letter position coding. Psychological Review, 115, 577–600. doi:10.1037/a0012667
44.
GoslinJ.GalluzziC.RomaniC. (2014). PhonItalia: A phonological lexicon for Italian. Behavioral Research Methods, 46, 872–886. doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0400-8
45.
GraingerJ.van HeuvenW. J. B. (2003). Modeling letter position coding in printed word perception. In BoninP. (Ed.), Mental lexicon (pp. 1–23). New York, NY: Nova Science.
46.
GuerreraC.ForsterK. (2008). Masked form priming with extreme transposition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 117–142. doi:10.1080/01690960701579722
47.
HolmesV. M.NgE. (1993). Word-specific knowledge, word-recognition strategies, and spelling ability. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 230–257. doi:10.1006/jmla.1993.1013
48.
JeffreysH. (1961). Theory of probability (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
49.
JohnsonR. L.PereaM.RaynerK. (2007). Transposed-letter effects in reading: Evidence from eye movements and parafoveal preview. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 209–229. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.33.1.209
50.
KinoshitaS.NorrisD. (2009). Transposed-letter priming of prelexical orthographic representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1–18. doi:10.1037/a0014277
51.
KtoriM.KingmaB.HannaganT.HolcombP. J.GraingerJ. (2014). On the time-course of adjacent and non-adjacent transposed-letter priming. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26, 491–505. doi:10.1080/20445911.2014.922092
52.
LeeH. W.RaynerK.PollatsekA. (2002). The processing of consonants and vowels in reading: Evidence from the fast priming paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review9, 766–772. doi:10.3758/BF03196333
53.
LeeM. D.WagenmakersE. J. (2013). Bayesian cognitive modeling: A practical course. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139087759
LevyR. (2014). Using R formulae to test for main effects in the presence of higher-order interactions (arxiv:1405.2094). Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2094
56.
LoS.AndrewsS. (2015). To transform or not to transform: Using generalized linear mixed models to analyse reaction time data. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1171. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01171
57.
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.
58.
LupkerS. J.DavisC. J. (2009). Sandwich priming: A method for overcoming the limitations of masked priming by reducing lexical competitor effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 618–639. doi:10.1037/a0015278
59.
LupkerS. J.PereaM.DavisC. J. (2008). Transposed-letter effects: Consonants, vowels and letter frequency. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 93–116. doi:10.1080/01690960701579714
60.
LupkerS. J.ZhangY.PerryJ. R.DavisC. J. (2015). Superset versus substitution-letter priming: An evaluation of open-bigram models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41, 138–151. doi:10.1037/a0038392
61.
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, 375–407. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.88.5.375
62.
NewB.AraújoV.NazziT. (2008). Differential processing of consonants and vowels in lexical access through reading. Psychological Science, 19, 1223–1227. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02228.x
63.
NewB.NazziT. (2014). The time course of consonant and vowel processing during word recognition. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 147–157. doi:10.1080/01690965.2012.735678
64.
NorrisD.KinoshitaS. (2008). Perception as evidence accumulation and Bayesian inference: Insights from masked priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 433–455. doi:10.1037/a0012799
65.
NorrisD.KinoshitaS. (2012). Reading through a noisy channel: Why there’s nothing special about the perception of orthography. Psychological Review, 119, 517–545. doi:10.1037/a0028450
66.
O’ConnorR. E.ForsterK. I. (1981). Criterion bias and search sequence bias in word recognition. Memory & Cognition, 9, 78–92. doi:10.3758/bf03196953
67.
PereaM.AchaJ. (2009). Does letter position coding depend on consonant/vowel status? Evidence with the masked priming technique. Acta Psychologica, 130, 127–137. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.11.001
68.
PereaM.LupkerS. J. (2003a). Does jugde activate COURT? Transposed-letter similarity effects in masked associative priming. Memory & Cognition, 31, 829–841. doi:10.3758/BF03196438
69.
PereaM.LupkerS. J. (2003b). Transposed-letter confusability effects in masked form priming. In KinoshitaS.LupkerS. J. (Eds.), Masked priming: State of the art (pp. 97–120). Hove, UK: Psychology Press. doi:10.4324/9780203502846
70.
PereaM.LupkerS. J. (2004). Can CANISO activate CANISO! Transposed-letter similarity effects with nonadjacent letter positions. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 231–246. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.005
71.
PereaM.MarcetA.AchaJ. (2018). Does consonant-vowel skeletal structure play a role early in lexical processing? Evidence from masked priming. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39, 169–186. doi:10.1017/s0142716417000431
72.
PerryC.ZieglerJ. C. (2002). On the nature of phonological assembly: Evidence from backward masking. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 31–59. doi:10.1080/01690960042000157
73.
PerryJ. R.LupkerS. J.DavisC. J. (2008). An evaluation of the interactive-activation model using masked partial-word priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 36–68. doi:10.1080/01690960701578112
74.
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available from https://www.R-project.org/
SchoonbaertS.GraingerJ. (2004). Letter position coding in printed word perception: Effects of repeated and transposed letters. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19, 333–367. doi:10.1080/01690960344000198
77.
SchubertT.KinoshitaS.NorrisD. (2018). What causes the greater perceived similarity of consonant-transposed nonwords?The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 642–656. doi:10.1080/17470218.2016.1271444
SoaresA. P.PereaM.ComesañaM. (2014). Tracking the emergence of the consonant bias in visual-word recognition: Evidence with developing readers. PLoS ONE, 9, e88580. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0088580
80.
TaftM.van GraanF. (1998). Lack of phonological mediation in a semantic categorization task. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 203–224. doi:10.1006/jmla.1997.2538
81.
TreimanR. (1994). To what extent do orthographic units in print mirror phonological units in speech?Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 91–110. doi:10.1007/bf02143178
82.
VelanH.FrostR. (2003). Cambridge University versus Hebrew University: The impact of letter transposition on reading English and Hebrew. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 913–918. doi:10.3758/bf03194121
83.
WagenmakersE. J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 779–804. doi:10.3758/bf03194105
84.
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. doi:10.3758/BF03196158
85.
YangH.ChenJ.SpinelliG.LupkerS. J. (2019). The impact of text orientation on form priming effects in four-character Chinese words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45, 1511–1526. doi:10.1037/xlm0000655
86.
YangH.LupkerS. J. (in review). A re-examination of the consonant-vowel difference in TL priming effects with English words.
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.
