Previous research has shown that phonology influences the visual perception of a word’s letters. However, the influence of prosody, including word stress, on grapheme perception in polysyllabic words is poorly investigated. The present study addresses this issue with a letter search task. Participants searched for vowel letters (Experiment 1) and consonant letters (Experiment 2) in stressed and unstressed syllables of bisyllabic words. Results reveal facilitated vowel letter detection in stressed syllables compared with unstressed syllables, indicating that prosodic information affects visual letter perception. Moreover, an analysis of the response time distribution revealed that the effect was present even for the fastest decisions but increased for slower response times. However, no systematic stress effect emerged for consonants. We discuss possible sources and dynamics of the observed pattern and the importance to accommodate feedback processes of prosody on letter perception in models of polysyllabic word reading.
AchaJ.PereaM. (2010). On the role of consonants and vowels in visual-word processing: Evidence with a letter search paradigm. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(3), 423–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960903411666
2.
ArciuliJ.CupplesL. (2006). The processing of lexical stress during visual word recognition: Typicality effects and orthographic correlates. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(5), 920–948. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980443000782
BaayenR. H.MilinP. (2010). Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(2), 807. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.807
5.
BaayenR. H.PiepenbrockR.GulikersL. (1996). The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM). Linguistic Data Consortium.
6.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
7.
BerentI.PerfettiC. A. (1995). A rose is a REEZ: The two-cycles model of phonology assembly in reading English. Psychological Review, 102, 146–184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.146
8.
BeyersmannE.CasalisS.ZieglerJ. C.GraingerJ. (2015). Language proficiency and morpho-orthographic segmentation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(4), 1054–1061. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0752-9
BrysbaertM.ManderaP.KeuleersE. (2018). The word frequency effect in word processing: An updated review. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27, 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417727521
11.
CarreirasM.Gillon-DowensM.VergaraM.PereaM. (2008). Are vowels and consonants processed differently? Event-related potential evidence with a delayed letter paradigm. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(2), 275–288. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.21023
CastlesA.RastleK.NationK. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271
14.
ChetailF.ContentA. (2012). The internal structure of chaos: Letter category determines visual word perceptual units. Journal of Memory and Language, 67(3), 371–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.07.004
15.
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(1), 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613500508
16.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.1.204
17.
CommissaireE.CasalisS. (2017). The use and nature of grapheme coding during sub-lexical processing and lexical access. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 1324–1339. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1318294
18.
DiependaeleK.ZieglerJ. C.GraingerJ. (2010). Fast phonology and the Bimodal Interactive Activation Model. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22(5), 764–778. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440902834782
19.
DomahsU.PlagI.CarrollR. (2014). Word stress assignment in German, English and Dutch: Quantity-sensitivity and extrametricality revisited. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 17(1), 59–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-014-9063-9
20.
DrewnowskiA.HealyA. F. (1982). Phonetic factors in letter detection: A reevaluation. Memory & Cognition, 10(2), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209216
21.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023577
22.
EisenbergP. (1991). Syllabische Struktur und Wortakzent: Prinzipien der Prosodik deutscher Wörter. [Syllabic structure and lexical stress: Principles of German word prosody] Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 10, 37–64.
23.
FrostR. (1998). Toward a strong phonological theory of visual word recognition: True issues and false trails. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 71–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.123.1.71
24.
GoedemansR.van der HulstH. (2013). Fixed stress locations. In DryerM. S.HaspelmathM. (Eds.), The world Atlas of language structures online. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7385533
25.
GoldmanH. B.HealyA. F. (1985). Detection errors in a task with articulatory suppression: Phonological receding and reading. Memory & Cognition, 13(5), 463–468. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198459
26.
HaldermanL. K.AshbyJ.PerfettiC. A. (2012). Phonology: An early and integral role in identifying words. In AdelmanJ. S. (Ed.), Visual word recognition: Models and methods, orthography and phonology (vol. 1, pp. 207–228). Psychology Press.
27.
HansenD.RodgersT. S. (1965). An exploration of psycholinguistic units in initial reading. Institute for Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences, Stanford University.
28.
HarmM. W.SeidenbergM. S. (2004). Computing the meanings of words in reading: Cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes. Psychol Rev, 111(3), 662–720. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.3.662
29.
HarrisL. N.PerfettiC. A. (2016). Lexical stress and linguistic predictability influence proofreading behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 96. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00096
30.
HeisterJ.WürznerK.-M.BubenzerJ.PohlE.HanneforthT.GeykenA.KlieglR. (2011). dlexDB—Eine lexikalische Datenbank für die psychologische und linguistische Forschung. [DlexDB—A lexical database for the psychological and linguistic research]. Psychologische Rundschau, 62(1), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1026/0033-3042/a000029
31.
JouravlevO.LupkerS. J. (2015). Lexical stress assignment as a problem of probabilistic inference. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(5), 1174–1192. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0802-y
KreinerD. S. (1992). Reaction time measures of spelling: Testing a two-strategy model of skilled spelling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 765–776. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.18.4.765
34.
KtoriM.MousikouP.RastleK. (2018). Cues to stress assignment in reading aloud. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 147(1), 36–61. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000380
35.
LangeK.KühnS.FilevichE. (2015). “Just Another Tool for Online Studies” (JATOS): An easy solution for setup and management of web servers supporting online studies. PLOS ONE, 10(6), e0130834. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130834
36.
LeeH.-W.RaynerK.PollatsekA. (2002). The processing of consonants and vowels in reading: Evidence from the fast priming paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 766–772. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196333
37.
LemhöferK.BroersmaM. (2012). Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid Lexical Test for Advanced Learners of English. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 325–343. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0146-0
MathôtS.SchreijD.TheeuwesJ. (2012). OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 314–324. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0168-7
41.
McClellandJ. L.RumelhartD. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375–407. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.5.375
42.
MonaghanP.ArciuliJ.SevaN. (2016). Chapter 10. Cross-linguistic evidence for probabilistic orthographic cues to lexical stress. In ThomsonJ.JarmulowiczL (Eds.), Linguistic Rhythm and Literacy (pp. 215–236). John Benjamins.
43.
MousikouP.SadatJ.LucasR.RastleK. (2017). Moving beyond the monosyllable in models of skilled reading: Mega-study of disyllabic nonword reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 93, 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.09.003
NewB.AraújoV.NazziT. (2008). Differential processing of consonants and vowels in lexical access through reading. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1223–1227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02228.x
47.
NewB.NazziT. (2014). The time course of consonant and vowel processing during word recognition. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(2), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.735678
48.
NickelsL.HowardD. (1999). Effects of lexical stress on aphasic word production. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 13(4), 269–294.
49.
PerfettiC. A.ZhangS.BerentI. (1992). Chapter 13 Reading in English and Chinese: Evidence for a “Universal” Phonological Principle. In FrostR.KatzL. (Eds.), Advances in Psychology (Vol. 94, pp. 227–248). North-Holland. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62798-3
50.
PerryC.ZieglerJ. C.ZorziM. (2010). Beyond single syllables: Large-scale modeling of reading aloud with the Connectionist Dual Process (CDP++) model. Cognitive Psychology, 61(2), 106–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.04.001
51.
PerryC.ZieglerJ. C.ZorziM. (2014b). CDP++.Italian: Modelling sublexical and supralexical inconsistency in a shallow orthography. PLOS ONE, 9(4), e94291. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094291
52.
PerryC.ZieglerJ. C.ZorziM. (2014a). When silent letters say more than a thousand words: An implementation and evaluation of CDP++ in French. Journal of Memory and Language, 72, 98–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.01.003
53.
R Core Team (2022). R:A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
54.
RastleK.ColtheartM. (2000). Lexical and nonlexical print-to-sound translation of disyllabic words and nonwords. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(3), 342–364. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2687
RöttgerT. B.DomahsU.GrandeM.DomahsF. (2012). Structural factors affecting the assignment of word stress in German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 24(1), 53–94. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542711000262
58.
ScaltrittiM.BalotaD. A. (2013). Are all letters really processed equally and in parallel? Further evidence of a robust first letter advantage. Acta Psychologica, 144(2), 397–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.07.018
59.
SchmandtS.NazziT.NewB. (2022). Consonant, vowel and lexical neighbourhood processing during word recognition: New evidence using the sandwich priming technique. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 37(9), 1115–1130. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2022.2046115
ŠevaN.MonaghanP.ArciuliJ. (2009). Stressing what is important: Orthographic cues and lexical stress assignment. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22(3), 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2008.09.002
SulpizioS.ArduinoL. S.PaiziD.BuraniC. (2013). Stress assignment in reading Italian polysyllabic pseudowords. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028472
64.
SulpizioS.BuraniC.ColomboL. (2015). The process of stress assignment in reading aloud: Critical issues from studies on Italian. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2014.976340
65.
TomaschekF.DomahsU.DomahsF. (2023). Modelling German Word Stress. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 8(1), 9015. https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.9015
66.
TreimanR. (1993). Beginning to spell: A study of first-grade children (pp. xiii, 365). Oxford University Press.
67.
TreimanR.BerchD.WeatherstonS. (1993). Children’s use of phoneme-grapheme correspondences in spelling: Roles of position and stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 466–477. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.3.466
68.
TreimanR.RosalesN.CusnerL.KesslerB. (2020). Cues to stress in English spelling. Journal of Memory and Language, 112, 104089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2020.104089
69.
TydgatI.GraingerJ. (2009). Serial position effects in the identification of letters, digits, and symbols. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 480–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013027
70.
van HeuvenW. J. B.ManderaP.KeuleersE.BrysbaertM. (2014). SUBTLEX-UK: A new and improved word frequency database for British English. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 1176–1190. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.850521
71.
VenablesW. N.RipleyB. D. (2002). Modern applied statistics with S (4th ed.). Springer.
72.
VennemannT. (1991). Skizze der deutschen Wortprosodie. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft [Study of German word prosody], 10, 86–111.
73.
WieseR. (2000). The phonology of German. Oxford University Press.
74.
YarkoniT.BalotaD.YapM. (2008). Moving beyond Coltheart’s N: A new measure of orthographic similarity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 971–979. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.5.971
75.
ZieglerJ. C.JacobsA. M. (1995). Phonological information provides early sources of constraint in the processing of letter strings. Journal of Memory and Language, 34(5), 567–593. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1026
76.
ZieglerJ. C.Van OrdenG. C.JacobsA. M. (1997). Phonology can help or hurt the perception of print. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23(3), 845–860. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.23.3.845
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.
