The Resolution of Visual Noise in Word Recognition

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Hye K. Pae ; Yong-Won Lee
• 关键词：Lexical processing ; Alternated fonts ; Inverse fonts ; Psycholinguistic grain size theory
• 刊名：Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：June 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：44
• 期：3
• 页码：337-358
• 全文大小：1,225 KB
• 参考文献：Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  Akamatsu, N. (1999). The effects of first language orthographic features on word recognition processing in English as a second language. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 381鈥?03.View Article
  Akamatsu, N. (2003). The effects of first language orthographic features on second language reading in text. Language Learning, 53, 207鈥?31.View Article
  Allen, P. A., Wallace, B., & Weber, T. A. (1995). Influence of case type, word frequency, and exposure duration on visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 914鈥?35.PubMed
  Besner, D. (1983). Basic decoding components in reading: Two dissociable feature extraction processes. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 37, 429鈥?38.View Article
  Besner, D., & McCann, R. S. (1987). Word frequency and pattern distortion in visual word identification and production: An examination of four classes of models. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 201鈥?19). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  Chen, H.-C., & Vaid, J. (2007). Word frequency modulates the basic orthographic syllabic structure (BOSS) effect in English polysyllable word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 58鈥?2.View Article
  Cho, J.-R., & McBride-Chang, C. (2005). Levels of phonological awareness in Korean and English: A 1-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 564鈥?71.View Article
  Davies, M. (2013). The corpus of contemporary American English (COCA). Retrieved February 15, 2012, http://鈥媍orpus.鈥媌yu.鈥媏du/鈥媍oca/鈥?/span> .
  Durgunoglu, A. Y., & Oney, B. (1999). A cross-linguistic comparison of phonological awareness and word recognition. Reading and Writing, 11, 281鈥?99.View Article
  Frost, R. (1998). Towards a strong phonological theory of visual word recognition: True issues and false traits. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 71鈥?9.View Article PubMed
  Frost, R., Katz, L., & Bentin, S. (1987). Strategies for visual word recognition and orthographic depth: A multilingual comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 104鈥?15.PubMed
  Goswami, U., Ziegler, J. C., Dalton, L., & Schneider, W. (2003). Nonword reading across orthographies: How flexible is the choice of reading units? Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 235鈥?47.View Article
  Gottardo, A., Yan, B., Siegel, L. S., & Wade-Woolley, L. (2001). Factors related to English reading performance in children with Chinese as a first language: More evidence of cross-language transfer of phonological processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 530鈥?42.View Article
  Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist, 49, 294鈥?03.View Article PubMed
  Lavidor, M., Ellis, A. W., & Pansky, A. (2002). Case alternation and length effects in lateralized word recognition: Studies of English and Hebrew. Brain and Cognition, 50, 257鈥?71.View Article PubMed
  Lee, C. (1999). A locus of the word-length effect on word recognition. Reading Psychology, 20, 129鈥?50.View Article
  Louie, B. Y., & Louie, D. H. (2002). Children鈥檚 literature in the People鈥檚 Republic of China: Its purposes and genres. In W. Li, J. S. Gaffney, & J. L. Packard (Eds.), Chinese children鈥檚 reading acquisition: Theoretical and pedagogical issues (pp. 175鈥?93). Boston, MA: Kluwer.View Article
  McBride-Chang, C., Tong, X., Shu, H., Wong, A. M.-Y., Leung, K.-W., & Tardif, T. (2008). Syllable, phoneme, and tone: Psycholinguistic units in early Chinese and English word recognition. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 171鈥?94.View Article
  McBride-Chang, C., Bialystok, E., Chong, K., & Li, Y. P. (2004). Levels of phonological awareness in three cultures. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 89, 93鈥?11.View Article PubMed
  Pae, H. K. (2011). Is Korean a syllabic alphabet or an alphabetic syllabary? Writing Systems Research, 3, 103鈥?15.View Article
  Pae, H. K., Greenberg, D., & Williams, R. S. (2012). An analysis of differential error patterns on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III in children and struggling African-American adults readers. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 1239鈥?258.View Article
  Pae, H. K., Sevcik, R. A., & Morris, R. D. (2010). Cross-language correlates in phonological process and naming speed: Evidence from deep and shallow orthographies. The Journal of Research in Reading, 33, 335鈥?36.View Article
  Perea, M., Rosa, E., & Gomez, C. (2002). Is the go/no-go lexical decision task an alternative to the yes/no lexical decision task? Memory and Cognition, 30, 34鈥?5.View Article PubMed
  Perfetti, C. A., & Liu, Y. (2005). Orthography to phonology and meaning: Comparisons across and within writing systems. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 18, 193鈥?10.View Article
  Reingold, E. M., Yang, J., & Rayner, K. (2010). The time course of word frequency and case alternation effects on fixation times in reading: Evidence for lexical control of eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36, 1677鈥?655.PubMed
  Seidenberg, M. S. (2012). Writing systems: Not optimal, but good enough. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 305鈥?07.View Article PubMed
  Simpson, G. B., & Kang, H. (2004). Syllable processing in alphabetic Korean. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 17, 137鈥?51.View Article
  Wang, M., Koda, K., & Perfetti, C. A. (2003). Alphabetic and nonalphabetic L1 effects in English word identification: A comparison of Korean and Chinese English L2 learners. Cognition, 87, 129鈥?49.View Article PubMed
  Wang, M., & Cheng, C. (2008). Subsyllabic unit preference in young Chinese children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 291鈥?14.View Article
  Weaver, C. (1988). Reading process and practice: From socio-psycholinguistics to whole language (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
  Woodcock, R. W. (1998a). Woodcock reading mastery tests-NU. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
  Woodcock, R. W. (1998b). Woodcock reading master tests-NU: Examiner鈥檚 manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
  Yoon, H. K., Bolger, D. J., Kwon, O. S., & Perfetti, C. A. (2002). Subsyllabic units in reading: A difference between Korean and English. In L. Verhoeven, C. Elbro, & P. Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp. 139鈥?63). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.View Article
  Ziegler, J., & Goswami, C. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 3鈥?9.View Article PubMed
  
• 作者单位：Hye K. Pae (1)
  Yong-Won Lee (2)
  
  1. School of Education, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA
  2. Department of English Language and Literature, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea
  
• 刊物主题：Psychology, general; Cognitive Psychology; Psycholinguistics;
• 出版者：Springer US
• ISSN：1573-6555

文摘

This study examined lexical processing in English by native speakers of Korean and Chinese, compared to that of native speakers of English, using normal, alternated, and inverse fonts. Sixty four adult students participated in a lexical decision task. The findings demonstrated similarities and differences in accuracy and latency among the three L1 groups. The participants, regardless of L1, had a greater advantage in nonwords than words for the normal fonts because they were able to efficiently detect the illegal letter strings. However, word advantages were observed in the visually distorted stimuli (i.e., alternated and inverse fonts). These results were explained from the perspectives of the theory of psycholinguistic grain size, L1鈥揕2 distance, and the mechanism of familiarity discrimination. The native speakers of Chinese were more sensitive to visual distortions than the Korean counterpart, suggesting that the linguistic template established in L1 might play a role in word processing in English.