We conducted a megastudy to examine the spelling of American English monosyllables with typewritten responses. We related both sublexical and lexical/semantic factors to spelling accuracy and reaction time (RT) for the first keypress and response duration for spelling 1,856 monophonic monosyllables. We found that (a) each of 13 predictor variables was significantly related to performance for at least one measure, (b) orthographic length was unrelated to the first key RT, but did relate to accuracy and response duration, (c) sound-spelling and spelling-sound consistency was related to performance, and in particular, onset consistency related to accuracy and first key RT, but was unrelated to response duration, (d) contextual diversity was consistently related to performance across all measures, and (e) age of acquisition (AoA) was related to all measures, but was related more to the first key RT than response duration. The results indicate that people begin the spelling process once they identify the first letter, and they continue to process the spelling pattern as the response unfolds. These results are best explained by a parallel-distributed-processing framework.
AdelmanJ. S.BrownG. D.QuesadaJ. F. (2006). Contextual diversity, not word frequency, determines word-naming and lexical decision times. Psychological Science, 17(9), 814–823. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01787
2.
AdelmanJ. S.EstesZ. (2013). Emotion and memory: A recognition advantage for positive and negative words independent of arousal. Cognition, 129, 530–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.08.014
3.
AfonsoO.Suárez-CoallaP.CuetosF. (2015). Spelling impairments in Spanish dyslexic adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 466. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00466
4.
AfonsoO.Suárez-CoallaP.González-MartínN.CuetosF. (2018). The impact of word frequency on peripheral processes during handwriting: A matter of age. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(3), 695–703.
5.
AndrewsS.VeldreA.ClarkeI. E. (2020). Measuring lexical quality: The role of spelling ability. Behavior Research Methods, 52, 2257–2282. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01387-3
6.
BalotaD. A.CorteseM. J.Sergent MarshallS. D.SpielerD. H.YapM. J. (2004). Visual word recognition for single syllable words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 283–316. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.283
7.
BalotaD. A.YapM. J.CorteseM. J.HutchisonK. A.KesslerB.LoftusB.NeelyJ. H.NelsonD. L.SimpsonG. B.TreimanR. (2007). The English lexicon project: A user’s guide. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193014
8.
BarryC. (1994). Spelling routes (or roots or rutes). In BrownG. D. A.EllisN. C. (Eds.), Handbook of spelling: Theory, process and intervention (pp. 27–49). Wiley.
9.
BoninP.BarryC.MéotA.ChalardM. (2004). The influence of age of acquisition in word reading and other tasks: A never ending story?Journal of Memory and Language, 50(4), 456–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.02.001
10.
BoninP.ChalardM.MéotA.FayolM. (2002). The determinants of spoken and written picture naming latencies. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 89–114. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712602162463
11.
BoninP.LarocheB.PerretC. (2016). Locus of word frequency effects in spelling to dictation: Still at the orthographic level!Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(11), 1814–1820. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000278
12.
BoninP.MeorA.LagarrigueA.RouxS. (2015). Written object naming, spelling to dictation, and immediate copying: Different tasks, different pathways?The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(7), 1268–1294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.978877
13.
BoninP.PeeremanR.FayolM. (2001). Do phonological codes constrain the selection of orthographic codes in written picture naming?Journal of Memory and Language, 45(4), 688–720. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2786.
14.
BrysbaertM.CorteseM. J. (2011). Do the effects of familiarity and age of acquisition survive better frequency norms?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(4), 545–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2010.503374
15.
BrysbaertM.NewB. (2009). Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 977–990. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.977
16.
CerniT.JobR. (2022). The interaction of central and peripheral processes in typing and handwriting: A direct comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 48(6), 563–581. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001006
17.
ChangY.MonaghanP.WelbourneS. (2019). A computational model of reading across developments: Effects of literacy onset on language processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 108, 104025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.05.003
18.
CheeQ. W.ChowK. J.YapM. J.GohW. D. (2020). Consistency norms for 37,677 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 52, 2535–2555. https://doi.org/10.3758.s13428-020-01391-7
19.
ChuaS. M.Rickard LiowS. J. (2014). The locus of word frequency effects in skilled spelling-to-dictation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(9), 1720–1741. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.868915
20.
ColtheartM.DavelaarE.JonassonJ. T.BesnerD. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. In DornicS. (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp. 535–555). Academic Press.
21.
CorteseM. J. (2019). The megastudy paradigm: A new direction for behavioral research in cognitive science. In SpielerD.H.SchumacherE. (Eds.), New methods in cognitive psychology (pp. 67–85). Taylor & Francis.
22.
CorteseM. J.BalotaD. A.Sergent-MarshallS. D.BucknerR. L. (2003). Spelling via semantics and phonology: Exploring the effects of age, Alzheimer’s disease, and primary semantic impairment. Neuropsychologia, 41(8), 952–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0028-3932(02)00320-2
23.
CorteseM. J.FugettA. (2004). Imageability ratings for 3,000 monosyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation, & Computers, 36, 384–387. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195585
24.
CorteseM. J.KhannaM. M. (2007). Age of acquisition predicts naming and lexical decision performance above and beyond 22 other predictor variables: An analysis of 2340 words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1072–1082. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701315467
25.
CorteseM. J.KhannaM. M. (2008). Age of acquisition ratings for 3,000 monosyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 791–794. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.791
26.
CorteseM.J.KhannaM.M. (2022). Relating emotional variables to recognition memory performance: A large-scale re-analysis of megastudy data. Memory, 30(7), 915–922. https:/doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2022.2055080
27.
CorteseM. J.McCartyD. P.SchockJ. (2015). A mega recognition memory study of 2,897 disyllabic words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 1489–1501. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.945096
28.
CorteseM. J.SchockJ. (2013). Imageability and age of acquisition effects in disyllabic word recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 946–972. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.722660
29.
CorteseM. J.SimpsonG. B. (2000). Regularity effects in word naming: What are they?Memory & Cognition, 28, 1269–1276. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211827
30.
CorteseM. J.Von NordheimD.KhannaM. M. (2020). Word length negatively affects recognition memory performance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(10), 1675–1683. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021820921133
31.
EllisA. W. (1982). Spelling and writing (and reading and speaking). In EllisA. W. (Ed.), Normality and pathology in cognitive functions (pp. 113–143). Academic Press.
32.
ElsherifM. M.PreeceE.CatlingJ. (2022). Age-of-acquisition effects: A literature review. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 49(5), 812–847. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001215
33.
FaustM. E.BalotaD. A.SpielerD. H.FerraroF. R. (1999). Individual differences in information-processing rate and amount: Implications for group differences in response latency. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 777–799. https://doi.org10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.777
HeymanT.Van EkerenL.HutchisonK.StormsG. (2015). Filling the gaps: A speeded word fragment completion megastudy. Behavior Research Methods, 48(4), 1508–1527. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0663-3
36.
HoughtonG.ZorziM. (2003). Normal and impaired spelling in a connectionist dual-route architecture. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20(2), 115–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290242000871
37.
KandelS.PeeremanR.GrosjacquesG.MichelF. (2011). For a psycholinguistic model of handwriting production: Testing the syllable-bigram controversy. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1310–1322.
38.
KawamotoA. H.KelloC. T.JonesR.BameK. (1998). Initial phoneme versus whole-word criterion to initiate pronunciation: Evidence based on response latency and initial phoneme duration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24(4), 862–885. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.24.4.862
39.
KesslerB.TreimanR. (2001). Relations between sounds and letters in English monosyllables. Journal of Memory and Language, 44(4), 592–617. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2745
40.
KeuleersE.DiependaeleK.BrysbaertM. (2010). Practice effects in large-scale visual word recognition studies: A lexical decision study on 14,000 Dutch monosyllabic and disyllabic words and nonwords. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 174. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00174
41.
KhannaM. M.CorteseM. J. (2021). How well imageability, concreteness, perceptual strength, and action strength predict recognition memory, lexical decision, and reading aloud performance. Memory, 29(5), 622–636. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2021.1924789
42.
KratzA. E.Keeler’sE. (2022). LinguaPix database: A megastudy of picture-naming norms. Behavior Research Methods, 54(2), 941–954. https://doi.org10.3758/s13428-021-01651-0
43.
KupermanV.Stadthagen-GonzalezH.BrysbaertM. (2012). Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 978–990. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0210-4
44.
LacruzI.FolkJ. R. (2004). Feedforward and feedback consistency effects for high- and low-frequency words in lexical decision and naming. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 57A(7), 1261–1284. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980343000756
45.
Lambon RalphM. A.EhsanS. (2006). Age of acquisition effects depend on the mapping between representations and the frequency of occurrence: Empirical and computational evidence. Visual Cognition, 13, 928–948. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280544000110
46.
MonaghanP.EllisA. W. (2010). Modeling reading development: Cumulative, incremental learning in a computational model of word naming. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 506–525. https://doi.10.1016/j.jml.2010.08.003
47.
PerryC.ZieglerJ.ZorziM. (2007). Nested incremental modeling in the development of computational theories: The CDP+ model of reading aloud. Psychological Review, 114(2), 273–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.2.273
48.
PinetS.ZieglerJ. C.AlarioF.-X. (2016). Typing is writing: Linguistic properties modulate typing execution. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(6), 1898–1906. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1044-3
49.
RastleK.HarringtonJ.ColtheartM.PalethorpeS. (2000). Reading aloud begins when the computation of phonology is complete. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(3), 1178–1191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.26.3.1178
50.
RouxS.McKeefT. J.GrosjacquesG.AfonsoO.KandelS. (2013). The interaction between central and peripheral processes in handwritten production. Cognition, 127, 235–241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.12.009
51.
ScaltrittiM.ArfeB.TorranceM.PeressottiF. (2016). Typing pictures: Linguistic processing cascades into finger movements. Cognition, 156, 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.07.006
52.
ScaltrittiM.LongcampM.AlarioF.-X. (2018). The serial order of response units in word production: The case of typing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(5), 819–825. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000494
53.
SeidenbergM.McClellandJ. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523–681.
54.
SiewC. S. Q.YiK.LeeC. H. (2021). Syllable and letter similarity effects in Korean: Insights from the Korean Lexicon Project. Journal of Memory and Language, 116, 104170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2020.104170
55.
StoneG. O.VanhoyM.Van OrdenG. C. (1997). Perception is a two-way street: Feedforward and feedback phonology in visual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 36(3), 337–359. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.2487
56.
SzeW. P.Rickard LiowS. J.YapM. J. (2014). The Chinese Lexicon Project: A repository of lexical decision behavioral responses for 2,500 Chinese characters. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 263–273. https://doi.org10.3758/s13428-013-0355-9
57.
TorranceM.NottbuschG.AlvesR. A.ArféB.ChanquoyL.Chukharev-HudilainenE.DimakosI.FidalgoR.HyönäJ.JóhannessonO. I.MadjarovG.PaulyD. N.UppstadP. H.van WaesL.VernonM.WengelinÅ. (2018). Timed written picture naming in 14 European languages. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 744–758. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0902-x
TreimanR.BourassaD. C. (2000). The development of spelling skills. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(3), 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00011363-200020030-00004
60.
TuckerB. V.BrennerD.DanielsonD. K.KelleyM. C.NenadićF.SimsM. N. (2019). The massive auditory lexical decision database. Behavior Research Methods, 51(3), 1187–1204. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1056-1
61.
YapM. J.BalotaD. A. (2009). Visual word recognition of multisyllabic words. Journal of Memory and Language, 60(4), 502–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.02.001
62.
YatesM. (2005). Phonological neighbors speed visual word processing: Evidence from multiple tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(6), 1385–1397. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.6.1385
63.
ZenoS. M.IvensS. H.MillardR. T.DuvvuriR. (1995). The educator’s word frequency guide. Touchstone Applied Science.
64.
ZieglerJ. C.StoneG. O.JacobsA. M. (1997). What is the pronunciation for -ough and the spelling for /u/? A database for computing feedforward and feedback consistency in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 29(4), 600–618. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210615
