This study investigates the processing consequences of letter connectedness during Arabic visual word recognition. Specifically, this study examined (a) whether there is a processing cost associated with letter connectedness during word-level reading and (b) whether this factor modulates form-level activation among words during lexical access. Experiment 1 tested one-, two-, and three-chunk Arabic words and nonwords in a lexical decision task with masked identity priming. Experiment 2 tested the same stimuli in a lexical decision task with masked form priming, in which prime–target pairs differed by a letter associated with the morphological root. In both experiments, there was a clear processing cost for letter connectedness—one-chunk words had longer processing times than two-chunk words, which had longer processing times than three-chunk words. Comparable processing time differences were also found for nonwords, suggesting that letter connectedness influences Arabic word recognition at a prelexical orthographic processing stage. Furthermore, although reliable priming was found in both the experiments, there was a suggestion that letter connectedness modulated form priming effects (Experiment 2), with the strongest effect for three-chunk word targets. These findings are taken to indicate that letter connectedness is an important factor that should be considered—and controlled for—in examinations of Arabic visual word recognition.
Abu-RabiaS. (2001). The role of vowels in reading Semitic scripts: Data from Arabic and Hebrew. Reading and Writing, 14, 39–59.
2.
AsaadH.EviatarZ. (2013). The effects of orthographic complexity and diglossia on letter naming in Arabic: A developmental study. Writing Systems Research, 5, 156–168.
3.
AyariS. (1996). Diglossia and illiteracy in the Arab world. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 9, 243–253.
4.
AzzamR. (1989). Orthography and reading of the Arabic language. In AaronP. G.JoshiR. M. (Eds.), Reading and writing disorders in different orthographic systems (pp. 203–218). Kluwer Academic.
5.
AzzamR. (1993). The nature of Arabic reading and spelling errors of young children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5, 355–385.
6.
BentinS.FrostR. (1987). Processing lexical ambiguity and visual word recognition in a deep orthography. Memory & Cognition, 15, 13–23.
7.
BentinS.IbrahimR. (1996). New evidence for phonological processing during visual word recognition: The case of Arabic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 309–323.
8.
BoudelaaS.Marslen-WilsonW. D. (2005). Discontinuous morphology in time: Incremental masked priming in Arabic. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 207–260.
9.
BoudelaaS.Marslen-WilsonW. D. (2010). Aralex: A lexical database for modern standard Arabic. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 481–487.
10.
BoudelaaS.Marslen-WilsonW. D. (2011). Productivity and priming: Morphemic decomposition in Arabic. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 624–652.
11.
BoudelaaS.Marslen-WilsonW. D. (2015). Structure, form, and meaning in the mental lexicon: Evidence from Arabic. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 955–992.
12.
BoudelaaS.NorrisD.MahfoudhiA.KinoshitaS. (2019). Transposed letter priming effects and allographic variation in Arabic: Insights from lexical decision and the same–different task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45, 729–757.
13.
CarreirasM.PereaM.Abu MallouhR. (2012). Priming of abstract letter representations may be universal: The case of Arabic. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 685–690.
14.
CarreirasM.PereaM.Gil-LópezC.Abu MallouhR.SalillasE. (2013). Neural correlates of visual vs. abstract letter processing in Roman and Arabic scripts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25, 1975–1985.
15.
CousineauD. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1, 42–45.
16.
DavisC. J. (2012). Developing a universal model of reading necessitates cracking the orthographic code. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 283–284.
17.
DavisC. J.LupkerS. J. (2006). Masked inhibitory priming in English: Evidence for lexical inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 668–687.
18.
DrewsE.ZwitserloodP. (1995). Morphological and orthographic similarity in visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 1098–1116.
19.
EviatarZ.IbrahimR. (2000). Bilingual is as bilingual does: Metalinguistic abilities of Arabic-speaking children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 451–471.
20.
EviatarZ.IbrahimR. (2004). Morphological and orthographic effects on hemispheric. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 17, 691–705.
21.
EviatarZ.IbrahimR.GanayimD. (2004). Orthography and the hemispheres: Visual and linguistic aspects of letter processing. Neuropsychology, 18, 174–184.
22.
FeitelsonD.GoldsteinZ.IraqiJ.ShareD. L. (1993). Effects of listening to story reading on aspects of literacy acquisition in a diglossic situation. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 71–79.
23.
ForsterK. I.ForsterJ. C. (2003). DMDX: A windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116–124.
24.
ForsterK. I.MohanK.HectorJ. (2003). The mechanics of masked priming. In KinoshitaS.LupkerS. J. (Eds.), Masked priming: The state of the art (pp. 3–37). Psychology Press.
25.
ForsterK. I.VeresC. (1998). The prime lexicality effect: Form-priming as a function of prime awareness, lexical status, and discrimination difficulty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 498–514.
26.
FriedmannN.Haddad-HannaM. (2012). Letter position dyslexia in Arabic: From form to position. Behavioural Neurology, 25, 193–203.
27.
FrostR.ForsterK. I.DeutschA. (1997). What can we learn from the morphology of Hebrew? A masked-priming investigation of morphological representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 829–856.
28.
FrostR.KuglerT.DeutschA.ForsterK. I. (2005). Orthographic structure versus morphological structure: Principles of lexical organization in a given language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1293–1326.
29.
GanayimD. (2015). Letter visibility and the optimal viewing position effect of isolated connected and un-connected letters in Arabic. Psychology of Language and Communication, 19, 174–200.
30.
GraingerJ.ZieglerJ. (2011). A dual-route approach to orthographic processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, Article 54.
31.
HermenaE. W.DriegheD.HellmuthS.LiversedgeS. P. (2015). Processing of Arabic diacritical marks: Phonological–syntactic disambiguation of homographic verbs and visual crowding effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41, 494–507.
32.
HermenaE. W.LiversedgeS. P.DriegheD. (2017). The influence of a word’s number of letters, spatial extent, and initial bigram characteristics on eye movement control during reading: Evidence from Arabic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43, 451–471.
33.
IbrahimR. (2009). The cognitive basis of diglossia in Arabic: Evidence from a repetition priming study within and between languages. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 2, 93–105.
34.
IbrahimR.Aharon-PeretzJ. (2005). Is literary Arabic a second language for native Arab speakers? Evidence from semantic priming study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34, 51–70.
35.
IbrahimR.EviatarZ.Aharon-PeretzJ. (2002). The characteristics of Arabic orthography slow its processing. Neuropsychology, 16, 322–326.
36.
IbrahimR.EviatarZ.Aharon-PeretzJ. (2007). Metalinguistic awareness and reading performance: A cross language comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 36, 297–317.
37.
KhatebA.Khateb-AbdelganiM.TahaH. Y.IbrahimR. (2014). The impact of orthographic connectivity on visual word recognition in Arabic: A cross-sectional study. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27, 1413–1436.
38.
KhatebA.TahaH. Y.EliasI.IbrahimR. (2013). The effect of the internal orthographic connectivity of written Arabic words on the process of the visual recognition: A comparison between skilled and dyslexic readers. Writing Systems Research, 5, 214–233.
39.
MansoDeZunigaC.HumphreysG. W.EvettL. J. (1991). Additive and interactive effects of repetition, degradation, and word frequency in the reading of handwriting. In BesnerD.HumphreysG. W. (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 10–33). Lawrence Erlbaum.
40.
MarcetA.PereaM. (2017). Can I order a burger at rnacdonalds.com? Visual similarity effects of multi-letter combinations at the early stages of word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44, 699–706.
41.
NakayamaM.SearsC. R.LupkerS. J. (2008). Masked priming with orthographic neighbors: A test of the lexical competition assumption. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1236–1260.
42.
PereaM.Abu MallouhR.CarreirasM. (2010). The search for an input-coding scheme: Transposed-letter priming in Arabic. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 375–380.
43.
PereaM.Abu MallouhR.CarreirasM. (2013). Early access to abstract representations in developing readers: Evidence from masked priming. Developmental Science, 16, 564–573.
44.
PereaM.Abu MallouhR.CarreirasM. (2014). Are root letters compulsory for lexical access in Semitic languages? The case of masked form-priming in Arabic. Cognition, 132, 491–500.
45.
PollatsekA.WellA. D. (1995). On the use of counterbalanced designs in cognitive research: A suggestion for a better and more powerful analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 785–794.
46.
RoldánM.MarcetA.PereaM. (2018). Is there a cost at encoding words with joined letters during visual word recognition?Psicológica, 39, 279–291.
47.
RomanG.PavardB. (1987). A comparative study: How we read in Arabic and French. In O’ReganJ. K.Levy-SchoenA. (Eds.), Eye movements from physiology to cognition (pp. 431–440). Elsevier.
48.
SeguiJ.GraingerJ. (1990). Priming word recognition with orthographic neighbors: Effects of relative prime-target frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 65–76.
49.
TahaH.IbrahimR.KhatebA. (2013). How does Arabic orthographic connectivity modulate brain activity during visual word recognition: An ERP study. Brain Topography, 26, 292–302.
50.
VelanH.FrostR. (2009). Letter-transposition effects are not universal: The impact of transposing letters in Hebrew. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 285–302.
51.
VelanH.FrostR. (2011). Words with and without internal structure: What determines the nature of orthographic and morphological processing?Cognition, 118, 141–156.
52.
WhitneyC. (2012). The study of orthographic processing has broadened research in visual word recognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 309–310.
53.
WitzelJ.CorneliusS.WitzelN.ForsterK. I.ForsterJ. C. (2013). Testing the viability of webDMDX for masked priming experiments. The Mental Lexicon, 8, 421–449.
54.
YakupM.AblizW.SerenoJ.PereaM. (2014). How is letter position coding attained in scripts with position-dependent allography?Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 1600–1606.
55.
YakupM.AblizW.SerenoJ.PereaM. (2015). Extending models of visual-word recognition to semicursive scripts: Evidence from masked priming in Uyghur. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41, 1553–1562.
56.
ZimmermanR.GomezP. (2012). Drawing attention to primes increases inhibitory word priming effects. The Mental Lexicon, 7, 119–146.
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.
