Efficient word recognition depends on the ability to overcome competition from overlapping words. The nature of the overlap depends on the input modality: spoken words have temporal overlap from other words that share phonemes in the same positions, whereas written words have spatial overlap from other words with letters in the same places. It is unclear how these differences in input format affect the ability to recognise a word and the types of competitors that become active while doing so. This study investigates word recognition in both modalities in children between 7 and 15. Children complete a visual-world paradigm eye-tracking task that measures competition from words with several types of overlap, using identical word lists between modalities. Results showed correlated developmental changes in the speed of target recognition in both modalities. In addition, developmental changes were seen in the efficiency of competitor suppression for some competitor types in the spoken modality. These data reveal some developmental continuity in the process of word recognition independent of modality but also some instances of independence in how competitors are activated. Stimuli, data, and analyses from this project are available at: https://osf.io/eav72.
AllopennaP. D.MagnusonJ. S.TanenhausM. K. (1998). Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(4), 419–439. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2558
2.
ApfelbaumK. S.Klein-PackardJ.McMurrayB. (2021). The pictures who shall not be named: Empirical support for benefits of preview in the Visual World Paradigm. Journal of Memory and Language, 121, Article 104279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2021.104279
3.
CarreirasM.PereaM. (2002). Masked priming effects with syllabic neighbors in a lexical decision task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(5), 1228–1242. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.28.5.1228
ConnineC. M.BlaskoD. G.TitoneD. (1993). Do the beginnings of spoken words have a special status in auditory word recognition?Journal of Memory and Language, 32(2), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1993.1011
6.
DahanD.GaskellM. G. (2007). The temporal dynamics of ambiguity resolution: Evidence from spoken-word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(4), 483–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.01.001
7.
DesrochesA. S.NewmanR. L. L.JoanisseM. F. (2009). Investigating the time course of spoken word recognition: Electrophysiological evidence for the influences of phonological similarity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(10), 1893–1906. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.21142
8.
DiehlR. L.KluenderK. R.FossD. J.ParkerE. M.GernsbacherM. A. (1987). Vowels as islands of reliability. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 564–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(87)90143-4
9.
DollaghanC. (1998). Spoken word recognition in children with and without specific language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19(2), 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716400010031
10.
DufourS.GraingerJ. (2019). Phoneme-order encoding during spoken word recognition: A priming investigation. Cognitive Science, 43(10), Article e12785. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12785
11.
EstesW. K.AllmeyerD. H.RederS. M. (1976). Serial position functions for letter identification at brief and extended exposure durations. Perception & Psychophysics, 19(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199379
12.
Farris-TrimbleA.McMurrayB. (2013). Test–retest reliability of eye tracking in the Visual World Paradigm for the study of real-time spoken word recognition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56, 1328–1346. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388
13.
FernaldA.PerforsA.MarchmanV. A. (2006). Picking up speed in understanding: Speech processing efficiency and vocabulary growth across the 2nd year. Developmental Psychology, 42(1), 98–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.1.98
14.
FernaldA.PintoJ. P.SwingleyD.WeinbergA.McRobertsG. W. (1998). Rapid gains in speed of verbal processing by infants in the 2nd year. Psychological Science, 9(3), 228–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00044
15.
FrauenfelderU. H.ScholtenM.ContentA. (2001). Bottom-up inhibition in lexical selection: Phonological mismatch effects in spoken word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16(5–6), 583–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960143000146
16.
GalleM. E.Klein-PackardJ.SchreiberK.McMurrayB. (2019). What are you waiting for? Real-time integration of cues for fricatives suggests encapsulated auditory memory. Cognitive Science, 43(1), Article e12700. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12700
17.
GreggJ.InhoffA. W.ConnineC. M. (2019). Re-reconsidering the role of temporal order in spoken word recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(11), 2574–2583. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021819849512
18.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.3.662
19.
HavyM.BertonciniJ.NazziT. (2011). Word learning and phonetic processing in preschool-age children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.08.002
20.
HendricksonK.ApfelbaumK.GoodwinC.BlomquistC.KleinK.McMurrayB. (2021). The profile of real-time competition in spoken and written word recognition: More similar than different. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218211056842
21.
HuesteggeL.RadachR.CorbicD.HuesteggeS. M. (2009). Oculomotor and linguistic determinants of reading development: A longitudinal study. Vision Research, 49(24), 2948–2959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2009.09.012
22.
HuettigF.RommersJ.MeyerA. S. (2011). Using the visual world paradigm to study language processing: A review and critical evaluation. Acta Psychologica, 137(2), 151–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.11.003
23.
MagnusonJ. S.DixonJ. A.TanenhausM. K.AslinR. N. (2007). The dynamics of lexical competition during spoken word recognition. Cognitive Science, 31(1), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210709336987
Marslen-WilsonW. D.MossH. E.van HalenS. (1996). Perceptual distance and competition in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22(6), 1376–1392. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.22.6.1376
26.
Marslen-WilsonW. D.WarrenP. (1994). Levels of perceptual representation and process in lexical access: Words, phonemes, and features. Psychological Review, 101(4), 653–675. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.653
27.
Marslen-WilsonW. D.ZwitserloodP. (1989). Accessing spoken words: The importance of word onsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15(3), 576–585. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.15.3.576
McClellandJ. L.RumelhartD. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part I. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88(5), 375–407. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.5.375
30.
McConkieG. W.KerrP. W.ReddixM. D.ZolaD. (1988). Eye movement control during reading: I. The location of initial eye fixations on words. Vision Research, 28(10), 1107–1118. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(88)90137-X
31.
McMurrayB.ApfelbaumK. S.TomblinJ. B. (in press). The slow development of real-time processing: Spoken Word Recognition as a crucible for new thinking about language acquisition and disorders. Current Directions in Psychological Science. https://psyarxiv.com/uebfc/
McMurrayB.EllisT. P.ApfelbaumK. S. (2019). How do you deal with uncertainty? Cochlear implant users differ in the dynamics of lexical processing of noncanonical inputs. Ear and Hearing, 40(4), 961–980. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000681
34.
McMurrayB.JongmanA. (2011). What information is necessary for speech categorization? Harnessing variability in the speech signal by integrating cues computed relative to expectations. Psychological Review, 118(2), 219–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022325
35.
McMurrayB.Klein-PackardJ.TomblinJ. B. (2019). A real-time mechanism underlying lexical deficits in developmental language disorder: Between-word inhibition. Cognition, 191, Article 104000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.06.012
36.
McMurrayB.SamelsonV. M.LeeS. H.TomblinJ. B. (2010). Individual differences in online spoken word recognition: Implications for SLI. Cognitive Psychology, 60(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.06.003
37.
PereaM. (1998). Orthographic neighbours are not all equal: Evidence using an identification technique. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/016909698386609
38.
PereaM.LupkerS. J. (2003). Transposed-letter confusability effects in masked form priming. In KinoshitaS.LupkerS. J. (Eds.), Masked priming: The state of the art (pp. 97–120). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203502846
39.
PittM. A.SamuelA. G. (2006). Word length and lexical activation: Longer is better. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(5), 1120–1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.5.1120
40.
RastleK.ColtheartM. (1999). Serial and strategic effects in reading aloud. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(2), 482–503. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.25.2.482
41.
RaynerK. (1986). Eye movements and the perceptual span in beginning and skilled readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41(2), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(86)90037-8
42.
RiglerH.Farris-TrimbleA.GreinerL.WalkerJ.TomblinJ. B.McMurrayB. (2015). The slow developmental time course of real-time spoken word recognition. Developmental Psychology, 51(12), 1690–1703. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000044
43.
RoembkeT. C.HazeltineE.ReedD. K.McMurrayB. (2019). Automaticity of word recognition is a unique predictor of reading fluency in middle-school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(2), 314–330. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000279
44.
RoembkeT. C.HazeltineE.ReedD. K.McMurrayB. (2021). Automaticity as an independent trait in predicting reading outcomes in middle-school. Developmental Psychology, 57, 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001153
45.
SchreiberK. E.McMurrayB. (2019). Listeners can anticipate future segments before they identify the current one. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 81(4), 1147–1166. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01712-9
46.
SeidenbergM. S.McClellandJ. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96(4), 523–568. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.523
47.
SekerinaI. A.BrooksP. J. (2007). Eye movements during spoken word recognition in Russian children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 98(1), 20–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2007.04.005
48.
SimmonsE. S.MagnusonJ. (2018). Word length, proportion of overlap, and phonological competition in spoken word recognition. Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society, 40, 1062–1067.
49.
StorkelH. L.HooverJ. R. (2010). An online calculator to compute phonotactic probability and neighborhood density on the basis of child corpora of spoken American English. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 497–506. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.2.497
50.
ToscanoJ. C.AndersonN. D.McMurrayB. (2013). Reconsidering the role of temporal order in spoken word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 981–987. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0417-0
51.
VorstiusC.RadachR.LoniganC. J. (2014). Eye movements in developing readers: A comparison of silent and oral sentence reading. Visual Cognition, 22(3), 458–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2014.881445
WhiteS. J.JohnsonR. L.LiversedgeS. P.RaynerK. (2008). Eye movements when reading transposed text: The importance of word-beginning letters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(5), 1261–1276. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.34.5.1261
54.
ZhangX.SamuelA. G. (2018). Is speech recognition automatic? Lexical competition, but not initial lexical access, requires cognitive resources. Journal of Memory and Language, 100, 32–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2018.01.002
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.
