Abstract
We examined associative priming of words (e.g., toad) and pseudohomophones of those words (e.g., tode) in lexical decision. In addition to word frequency effects, reliable base-word frequency effects were observed for pseudohomophones: Those based on high-frequency words elicited faster and more accurate correct rejections. Associative priming had disparate effects on high- and low-frequency items. Whereas priming improved performance to high-frequency pseudohomophones, it impaired performance to low-frequency pseudohomophones. The results suggested a resonance process, wherein phonologic identity and semantic priming combine to undermine the veridical perception of infrequent items. We tested this hypothesis in another experiment by administering a surprise recognition memory test after lexical decision. When asked to identify words that were spelled correctly during lexical decision, the participants often misremembered pseudohomophones as correctly spelled items. Patterns of false memory, however, were jointly affected by base-word frequencies and their original responses during lexical decision. Taken together, the results are consistent with resonance accounts of word recognition, wherein bottom-up and top-down information sources coalesce into correct, and sometimes illusory, perception. The results are also consistent with a recent lexical decision model, REM-LD, that emphasizes memory retrieval and top-down matching processes in lexical decision.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Atkinson, R. C., &Juola, J. F. (1973). Factors influencing speed and accuracy of word recognition. In S. Kornblum (Ed.),Attention and performance IV (pp. 583–612). New York: Academic Press.
Balota, D. A., &Chumbley, J. I. (1984). Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,10, 340–357.
Becker, C. A., &Killion, T. H. (1977). Interaction of visual and cogni tive effects in word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,3, 389–401.
Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., &Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual-route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud.Psychological Review,108, 204–256.
Donaldson, W. (1992). Measuring recognition memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,121, 275–277.
Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (1996). DMASTR (version 2.16) [computer program]. Available at www.u.arizona.edu/~kforster/dmastr /dmastr.htm.
Glanzer, M., Adams, J. K., Iverson, G. J., &Kim, K. (1993). The regularities of recognition memory.Psychological Review,100, 546–567.
Glanzer, M., &Ehrenreich, S. L. (1979). Structure and search of the internal lexicon.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,18, 381–398.
Goldinger, S. D., Kleider, H. M., &Shelley, E. (1999). The marriage of perception and memory: Creating two-way illusions with words and voices.Memory & Cognition,27, 328–338.
Gordon, B. (1983). Lexical access and lexical decision: Mechanisms of frequency sensitivity.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,22, 24–44.
Gottlob, L., Goldinger, S. D., Stone, G. O., &Van Orden, G. C. (1999). Reading homographs: Orthographic, phonologic, and semantic dynamics.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,25, 561–574.
Grainger, J., &Jacobs, A. M. (1996). Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple readout model.Psychological Review,103, 518–565.
Green, D. M., &Swets, J. A. (1966).Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.
Grossberg, S. (1980). How does a brain build a cognitive code?Psychological Review,87, 1–51.
Grossberg, S., &Stone, G. O. (1986). Neural dynamics of word recognition and recall: Attentional priming, learning, and resonance.Psychological Review,93, 46–74.
Harm, M. W., &Seidenberg, M. S. (1999). Phonology, reading acquisition, and dyslexia: Insights from connectionist models.Psychological Review,106, 491–528.
Hintzman, D. L. (1986). “Schema abstraction” in a multiple-trace memory model.Psychological Review,93, 411–428.
Hintzman, D. L., &Curran, T. (1997). Comparing retrieval dynamics in recognition memory and lexical decision.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,126, 228–247.
Holmes, V. M., &Ng, E. C. (1993). Word-specific knowledge, wordrecognition strategies, and spelling ability.Journal of Memory & Language,32, 230–257.
Jacoby, L. L. (1999). Ironic effects of repetition: Measuring age-related differences in memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,25, 3–22.
Jacoby, L. L., &Dallas, M. (1981). On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,110, 306–340.
Jacoby, L. L., &Whitehouse, K. (1989). An illusion of memory: False recognition influenced by unconscious perception.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,118, 126–135.
Jared, D., &Seidenberg, M. S. (1991). Does word identification proceed from spelling to sound to meaning?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,120, 358–394.
Kučera, H., &Francis, W. (1967).Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Lewellen, M. J., Goldinger, S. D., Pisoni, D. B., &Greene, B. (1993). Lexical familiarity and processing efficiency: Individual differences in naming, lexical decision, and semantic categorization.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,122, 316–330.
Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization.Psychological Review,95, 492–527.
Lukatela, G., Eaton, T., Lee, C. H., Carello, C., &Turvey, M. T. (2002). Equal homophonic priming with words and pseudohomophones.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,28, 3–21.
Lukatela, G., Frost, S. J., &Turvey, M. T. (1999). Identity priming in English is compromised by phonological ambiguity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,25, 775–790.
Lukatela, G., &Turvey, M. T. (1994a). Visual lexical access is initially phonological: 1. Evidence from associative priming by words, homophones, and pseudohomophones.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,123, 107–128.
Lukatela, G., &Turvey, M. T. (1994b). Visual lexical access is initially phonological: 2. Evidence from phonological priming by homophones and pseudohomophones.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,123, 331–353.
Macmillan, N. A., &Creelman, C. D. (1991).Detection theory: A user’s guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McClelland, J. L. (1979). On the time relations of mental processes: An examination of systems of processes in cascade.Psychological Review,86, 287–330.
Neely, J. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In D. Besner & G. W. Humphreys (Eds.),Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 264–336). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Paap, K. R., Newsome, S. L., McDonald, J. E., &Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1982). An activation-verification model for letter and word recognition: The word superiority effect.Psychological Review,89, 573–594.
Perfetti, C. A., &Bell, L. (1991). Phonemic activation during the first 40 msec of word identification: Evidence from backward masking and masked priming.Journal of Memory & Language,30, 473–485.
Perfetti, C. A., &Zhang, S. (1995). Very early phonological activation in Chinese reading.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 24–33.
Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., &Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains.Psychological Review,103, 56–115.
Ratcliff, R. (1988). Continuous versus discrete information processing: Modeling accumulation of partial information.Psychological Review,95, 238–255.
Rhodes, G., Parkin, A. J., &Tremewan, T. (1993). Semantic priming and sensitivity in lexical decision.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,19, 154–165.
Roediger, H. L., III (1996). Memory illusions.Journal of Memory & Language,35, 76–100.
Rueckl, J. G. (2002). The dynamics of visual word recognition.Ecological Psychology,14, 5–19.
Schvaneveldt, R. W., &McDonald, J. E. (1981). Semantic context and the encoding of words: Evidence for two modes of stimulus analysis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,7, 673–687.
Seidenberg, M. S., &McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed developmental model of word recognition and naming.Psychological Review,96, 523–568.
Seidenberg, M. S., & Zevin, J. D. (2003, November).Sensitivity to sublexical statistics and subject variability in the triangle model of reading. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Shiffrin, R. M., &Steyvers, M. (1997). A model for recognition memory: REM—retrieving effectively from memory.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,4, 145–166.
Stone, G. O., Vanhoy, M., &Van Orden, G. C. (1997). Perception is a two-way street: Feedforward and feedback phonology in visual word recognition.Journal of Memory & Language,36, 337–359.
Stone, G. O., &Van Orden, G. C. (1993). Strategic control of processing in word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,19, 744–774.
Underwood, B. J. (1969). Attributes of memory.Psychological Review,76, 559–573.
Van Orden, G. C. (1987). A ROWS is a ROSE: Spelling, sound, and reading.Memory & Cognition,15, 181–198.
Van Orden, G. C., &Goldinger, S. D. (1994). Interdependence of form and function in cognitive systems explains the perception of printed words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,20, 1269–1291.
Van Orden, G. C., Stone, G. O., Garlington, K. L., Markson, L. R., Pinnt, G. S., Simonfy, C. M., &Brichetto, T. (1992). “Assembled” phonology and reading: A case study in how theoretical perspective shapes empirical investigation. In R. Frost & L. Katz (Eds.),Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning (pp. 249–292). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Wagenmakers, E.-J., Steyvers, M., Raaijmakers, J. G. W., Shiffrin, R. M., van Rijn, H., &Zeelenberg, R. (2004). A model for evidence accumulation in the lexical decision task.Cognitive Psychology,48, 332–367.
Wagenmakers, E.-J., Zeelenberg, R., Steyvers, M., Shiffrin, R. M., &Raaijmakers, J. G. W. (2004). Nonword repetition in lexical decision: Support for two opposing processes.Quarterly Journal of Experiment Psychology,57A, 1191–1210.
Whittlesea, B. W. A., &Cantwell, A. L. (1987). Enduring influence of the purpose of experiences: Encoding-retrieval interactions in word and pseudoword perception.Memory & Cognition,15, 465–472.
Whittlesea, B. W. A., &Leboe, J. (2000). The heuristic basis of remembering and classification: Fluency, generation and resemblance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,129, 84–106.
Whittlesea, B. W. A., &Williams, L. D. (2001). The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis: I. The heuristic basis of feelings of familiarity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 3–13.
Ziegler, J. C., Jacobs, A. M., &Klüppel, D. (2001). Pseudohomophone effects in lexical decision: Still a challenge for current word recognition models.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,27, 547–559.
Ziegler, J. C., Stone, G. O., &Jacobs, A. 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, 600–618.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
This work was supported by NIDCD Grant R01-DC04535 to S.D.G.
Note—This article was accepted by the previous editorial team, when Colin M. MacLeod was Editor.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Becker, D.V., Goldinger, S.D. & Stone, G.O. Perception and recognition memory of words and werds: Two-way mirror effects. Memory & Cognition 34, 1495–1511 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195914
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195914