Factors Influencing the Accurate Identification of Written Minimal Pairs with Graphemic Similarity: Evidence from Persian-Speaking Children and Adults.
Grapheme
Letter identification
Morphology
Reaction time
Written minimal pair
Journal
Journal of psycholinguistic research
ISSN: 1573-6555
Titre abrégé: J Psycholinguist Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0333506
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2022
Dec 2022
Historique:
accepted:
02
05
2022
pubmed:
2
6
2022
medline:
15
11
2022
entrez:
1
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In this study, we compared children's and adults' ability to accurately identify target words in written minimal pairs (WMPs) with graphemically similar letters while accounting for factors such as gender, similarity of the middle letter in WMPs, mono- versus dimorphemic WMPs, number of syllable, homography, and imageability. Fifty children and fifty adults were exposed to a distractor stimulus as a pre-mask, followed by the target, and then a post-mask stimulus. Subsequently, the corresponding WMPs including the target word and its graphemically minimal contrast were presented to the participants to obtain their reaction time (RT) in accurately identifying the target word. Results demonstrated that children tend to slow down their reaction as a compensatory strategy to circumvent their less mature knowledge of graphophonic units/morphemes to achieve accuracy during word recognition. In addition, among all controlled factors, children's RT was significantly influenced by similarity of the middle letter in the WMPs. Adults' RT, however, was influenced by factors such as gender, similarity of the middle letter in WMPs, and homography.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35644895
doi: 10.1007/s10936-022-09890-8
pii: 10.1007/s10936-022-09890-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1267-1281Subventions
Organisme : University of Tehran
ID : 1397
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Abolhasanizadeh, V., Bijankhan, M., & Gussenhoven, C. (2012). The Persian pitch accent and its retention after the focus. Lingua, 122(13), 1380–1394.
Abu-Rabia, S. (1998). Reading Arabic texts: Effects of text type, reader type and vowelization. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 10, 105–119.
Abu-Rabia, S., & Awwad, J. (2004). Morphological structures in visual word recognition: The case of Arabic. Journal of Research in Reading, 27(3), 321–336.
Andrews, S. (2013). Is morphological priming stronger for transparent than opaque words? It depends on individual differences in spelling and vocabulary. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.12.001
doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.12.001
Arunachalam, S. (2013). Experimental methods for linguists. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(4), 221–232.
Azzam, R. (1989). Orthography and reading of the Arabic language. In P. G. Aaron & R. Malatesha Joshi (Eds.), Reading and writing disorders in different orthographic systems (pp. 203–218). Springer.
Baluch, B. (1993). Lexical decisions in Persian: A test of the orthographic depth hypothesis. International Journal of Psychology, 28(1), 19–29.
Baluch, B. (2006). Persian orthography and its relation to literacy. In R. Malatesha Joshi & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 365–376). Routledge.
Baluch, B., & Danaye-Tousi, M. (2006). Spelling transparency and its impact on dyslexic and unimpaired children’s memory for words. Annals of Dyslexia, 56, 319–334.
pubmed: 17849203
Boles, D. B., & Clifford, J. E. (1989). An upper- and lowercase alphabetic similarity matrix, with derived generation similarity values. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 21, 579–586.
Boudelaa, S., Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. (2020). Matrices of the frequency and similarity of Arabic letters and allographs. Behavior Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-01353-z
doi: 10.3758/s13428-01353-z
pubmed: 32077081
pmcid: 8062318
Carreiras, M., & Grainger, J. (2004). Sublexical representations and the ‘front end’ of visual word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19(3), 321–331.
Changizi, M. A., & Shimojo, S. (2005). Character complexity and redundancy in writing systems over human history. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London b: Biological Sciences, 272(1560), 267–275.
Cortese, M. J., & Fugett, A. (2004). Imageability ratings for 3,000 monosyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 36, 384–387.
Dawson, N., Rastle, K., & Ricketts, J. (2018). Morphological effects in visual word recognition: Children, adolescents, and adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(4), 645–654.
pubmed: 28956945
Duñabeitia, J. A., Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. (2007). Do transposed-letter similarity effects occur at a morpheme level? Evidence for morpho-orthographic decomposition. Cognition, 105, 691–703.
pubmed: 17217942
Enns, J. T., & Di Lollo, V. (2000). What’s new in visual masking? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(9), 345–352.
pubmed: 10962616
Frost, R., Forster, K. I., & Deutsch, A. (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(4), 829–856.
Geske, A., & Ozala, A. (2008). Factors influencing reading literacy at the primary school level. In Problem of education in the 21st century (vol. 6, pp. 71–77).
Grainger, J., Rey, A., & Dufau, S. (2008). Letter perception: From pixels to pandemonium. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(10), 381–387.
pubmed: 18760658
Greenwald, A. G., Draine, S. C., & Abrams, R. L. (1996). Three cognitive markers of unconscious semantic activation. Science, 273(5282), 1699–1702.
pubmed: 8781230
Kahnemuyipour, A. (2003). Syntactic categories and Persian stress. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21(2), 333–379.
Logan, S., & Johnston, R. (2010). Investigating Gender Differences in Reading. Educational Review, 62, 175–187.
Luce, R. D. (1986). Reaction times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization (Vol. 8). Oxford University Press.
Marcet, A., & Perea, M. (2017). Is nevtral NEUTRAL? Visual similarity effects in the early phases of written-word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 24, 1180–1185.
pubmed: 27873186
Marcet, A., & Perea, M. (2018). 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(5), 699–706.
pubmed: 29094993
Mueller, S. T., & Weidemann, C. T. (2012). Alphabetic letter identification: Effects of perceivability, similarity, and bias. Acta Psychologica, 139(1), 19–37.
pubmed: 22036587
Navon, D., & Shimron, J. (1981). Does word naming involve grapheme-to-phoneme translation? Evidence from Hebrew. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(1), 97–109.
Nunes, T., Bryant, P., & Barros, R. (2012). The development of word recognition and its significance for comprehension and fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 959.
Perry, C., Ziegler, J. C., & Zorzi, M. (2010). Beyond single syllables: Large-scale modeling of reading aloud with the connectionist dual process (CDP++) model. Cognitive Psychology, 61(2), 106–151.
pubmed: 20510406
Podgorny, P., & Garner, W. (1979). Reaction time as a measure of inter- and intraobject visual similarity: Letters of the alphabet. Perception and Psychophysics, 26, 37–52.
Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 3, 510–532.
Reicher, G. M. (1969). Perceptual recognition as a function of meaningfulness of stimulus material. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(2), 275.
pubmed: 5811803
Rogers, H. (2005). Writing systems: A linguistic approach. Blackwell.
Rubin, G. S., Becker, C. A., & Freeman, R. H. (1979). Morphological structure and its effect on visual word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(6), 757–767.
Schock, J., Cortese, M. J., & Khanna, M. M. (2012). Imageability estimates for 3,000 disyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 374–379.
pubmed: 22037976
Schreuder, R., Grendel, M., Poulisse, N., Roelofs, A., & van de Voort, M. (2012). Lexical processing, morphological complexity and reading. In D. A. Balota, G. B. Flores d’Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 147–164). Routledge.
Schubert, T. M. (2015). Cognitive processes of letter and digit identification. A dissertation submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Baltimore, Maryland.
Stahlberg, F., & Vogel, S. (2016). QATIP-an optical character recognition system for Arabic heritage collections in libraries. In 12th IAPR workshop on document analysis systems (DAS) (pp. 168–173). https://doi.org/10.1109/DAS.2016.81 .
Steacy, L. M., & Compton, D. L. (2019). Examining the role of imageability and regularity in word reading accuracy and learning efficiency among first and second graders at-risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 178, 226–250.
pubmed: 30414511
Taft, M. (1979). Lexical access via an orthographic code: The BOSS. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 21–39.
Taft, M. (2015). The nature of lexical representation in visual word recognition. In A. Pollatsek & R. Treiman (Eds.), Handbook on reading (pp. 99–113). Oxford University Press.
Thao, T. P., Sawaya, Y., Nguyen, H. Q., Yamada, A., Kubota, A., Sang, T. V., & Yamaguchi, R. S. (2020). Influences of human demographics, brand familiarity and security backgrounds on homograph recognition. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.10595 .
Treiman, R., & Kessler, B. (2005). Writing systems and spelling development. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 120–134). Blackwell Publishing.
Wheeler, D. D. (1970). Processes in word recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 1(1), 59–85.
Whelan, R. (2008). Effective analysis of reaction time data. The Psychological Record, 58(3), 475–482.
Wiley, R. W., Wilson, C., & Rapp, B. (2016). The effects of alphabet and expertise on letter perception. Journal of ExperimeNtal Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(8), 1186–1203.
pubmed: 26913778
Yap, M. J., & Balota, D. A. (2015). Visual word recognition. In A. Pollatsek & R. Treiman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of reading (pp. 26–43). Oxford University Press.