110 K. Rastle, M. Brysbaert / Cognitive Psychology 53 (2006) 97–145Table 6Mean effect sizes and 95% confidence limits <strong>for</strong> masked <strong>phonological</strong> <strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>effects</strong> reported <strong>in</strong> five experimentalparadigmsTask Mean effect size (r) .05 Lower limit .05 Upper limitForward-masked perceptual identification .240 .116 .356Backward-masked perceptual identification .193 .020 .354Forward-masked read<strong>in</strong>g aloud .312 .158 .451Forward-masked lexical decision .204 .057 .341Text read<strong>in</strong>g .234 .036 .472rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi4:385r ¼¼ .433.4:385 þ 19The same value would be obta<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>for</strong> a study <strong>in</strong> which the difference between the <strong>phonological</strong>and graphemic control conditions is reported as F(1,19) = 4.385. When the data werenot reported as a ma<strong>in</strong> effect between the two conditions but as an omnibus test <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>gmore conditions, the F contrast was calculated as described <strong>in</strong> Rosnow and Rosenthal (1996,pp. 336–337) and used to calculate the effect size. F<strong>in</strong>ally, when no further <strong>in</strong>dication was givenother than F < 1, we used values of r = +.05 <strong>for</strong> a trend <strong>in</strong> the expected direction andr = .05 <strong>for</strong> a trend <strong>in</strong> the opposite direction. Standardized effect sizes were calculated onlywhen there were <strong>in</strong>dependent samples of participants. Studies were weighted <strong>for</strong> their numbersof participants to calculate their overall effect size and confidence limits.Table 6 reports the average effect sizes <strong>for</strong> the five paradigms, together with their .05confidence <strong>in</strong>tervals. As shown, all effect sizes varied around r = .22 (5% varianceexpla<strong>in</strong>ed), which <strong>in</strong>dicates a small to medium effect. Whenever possible, we also calculatedthe effect sizes <strong>for</strong> analyses over items. On average, these were comparable but slightlysmaller than the ones presented <strong>in</strong> Table 6.3. Some <strong>in</strong>sights from the literature reviewOf the published literature identified, it appears as if the process<strong>in</strong>g of a target word is facilitatedby the presentation of a masked homophone (word or nonword) prime relative to thepresentation of a graphemic control. The <strong>in</strong>fluence of a masked <strong>phonological</strong> prime on targetprocess<strong>in</strong>g is small (particularly <strong>in</strong> backward mask<strong>in</strong>g), but statistically reliable across studieswith<strong>in</strong> every experimental paradigm considered. At the same time, however, the literaturereview unearthed a number of methodological issues, which <strong>in</strong> our view limit the persuasivenessof the exist<strong>in</strong>g f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs and call <strong>for</strong> further empirical evidence to substantiate the effect.3.1. A prime–response correlation <strong>in</strong> lexical decisionIn all but one of the lexical decision experiments reviewed <strong>in</strong> Table 4, pseudohomophoneprimes were always followed by word targets requir<strong>in</strong>g the ‘‘YES’’ response. 22 The exception is Berent (1997, Experiment 2), <strong>in</strong> which pseudohomophone foils were preceded by identityprimes. This aspect of Berent’s (1997) study may be undesirable nevertheless, because there is evidence thatparticipants can exploit <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation disclosed by primes and targets <strong>in</strong> comb<strong>in</strong>ation (e.g., Ratcliff & McKoon,1988). In the experimental situation reported by Berent (1997), the lexical decision response was ‘‘NO’’ wheneverthe overlap between primes and targets was maximal.
K. Rastle, M. Brysbaert / Cognitive Psychology 53 (2006) 97–145 111It is possible that this stimulus arrangement created the conditions <strong>for</strong> particularly rapid‘‘YES’’ responses, which may have had noth<strong>in</strong>g to do with the <strong>phonological</strong> overlapbetween primes and targets. Rather, any <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation accessible to participants thatdist<strong>in</strong>guished pseudohomophone primes from other primes <strong>in</strong> these experiments—<strong>for</strong>example, the total activation that these primes produce <strong>in</strong> the <strong>phonological</strong> lexicon (cf.Gra<strong>in</strong>ger & Jacobs, 1996)—could have cued a rapid ‘‘YES’’ response, and thus theappearance of a <strong>phonological</strong> <strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong> effect. This possibility is not unreasonable,especially given the body of research demonstrat<strong>in</strong>g response congruity <strong>effects</strong> <strong>for</strong>sublim<strong>in</strong>ally presented primes (e.g., Dehaene et al., 1998; Forster, 2004; Reynvoet,Caessens, & Brysbaert, 2002).This problem with the exist<strong>in</strong>g lexical decision data is very important to us, because weprefer that task to the others <strong>for</strong> several reasons. For one, we consider the lexical decisiontask to be the most appropriate with which to exam<strong>in</strong>e weak <strong>phonological</strong> theories of visualword recognition implemented as computational models. For example, whereas theDRC model has implemented procedures <strong>for</strong> carry<strong>in</strong>g out visual lexical decision, neitherperceptual identification nor gaze duration has been considered. Even apart from theDRC model, though, we prefer the <strong>for</strong>ward-masked visual lexical decision task to theother tasks <strong>for</strong> both theoretical and empirical reasons. Show<strong>in</strong>g a <strong>phonological</strong> <strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong>effect <strong>in</strong> read<strong>in</strong>g aloud, <strong>for</strong> example, is theoretically less <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g than <strong>in</strong> lexical decision,because there is no disagreement between weak and strong <strong>phonological</strong> theories that a<strong>phonological</strong> representation must be computed prior to the read<strong>in</strong>g aloud response. Similarly,show<strong>in</strong>g the effect <strong>in</strong> <strong>for</strong>ward or backward masked perceptual identification may beempirically less <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g than <strong>in</strong> lexical decision, because we do not know to what extentthese tasks <strong>in</strong>volve off-l<strong>in</strong>e guess<strong>in</strong>g (see e.g., Brysbaert & Praet, 1992; and Perry & Ziegler,2002 <strong>for</strong> evidence that masked perceptual identification may be subject to undesirable<strong>effects</strong> of guess<strong>in</strong>g). F<strong>in</strong>ally, the eye-movement data deviate from the other f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs,because the effect seems to be particularly robust with high-frequency word primes(Lee et al., 1999a).3.2. What makes an adequate graphemic control?Phonological primes typically overlap their targets on both <strong>phonological</strong> and orthographicdimensions (e.g., kake–CAKE). The <strong>in</strong>fluence of <strong>phonological</strong> overlap alone isthere<strong>for</strong>e obta<strong>in</strong>ed by compar<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>phonological</strong> <strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong> condition to a graphemic control<strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong> condition (e.g., pake–CAKE), the logic be<strong>in</strong>g that any additional <strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong>observed <strong>in</strong> the <strong>phonological</strong> <strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong> condition must be due to <strong>phonological</strong> overlapalone. This logic h<strong>in</strong>ges on the requirement that <strong>phonological</strong> primes and graphemic controlprimes share equivalent orthographic similarity with their targets. If targets are moreorthographically similar to their <strong>phonological</strong> primes than to their graphemic controlprimes, then any benefit yielded by the <strong>phonological</strong> primes can be ascribed to the orthographicsimilarity between primes and targets <strong>in</strong>stead of their <strong>phonological</strong> similarity.Conversely, if targets are more orthographically similar to their graphemic control primesthan to their <strong>phonological</strong> primes, then any additional benefit yielded by <strong>phonological</strong>overlap may be hidden.How, then, might we ensure that graphemic controls and <strong>phonological</strong> primes haveequivalent orthographic similarity to targets? The vast majority of articles that we surveyedreported construct<strong>in</strong>g graphemic controls such that they preserved the number of
- Page 5 and 6: K. Rastle, M. Brysbaert / Cognitive
- Page 7 and 8: Table 1Studies of English phonologi
- Page 9 and 10: Table 2Studies of English phonologi
- Page 11 and 12: Table 4Studies of English phonologi
- Page 13: Table 5Studies of English phonologi
- Page 17 and 18: K. Rastle, M. Brysbaert / Cognitive
- Page 19 and 20: K. Rastle, M. Brysbaert / Cognitive
- Page 21 and 22: Phonological priming effects on RTs
- Page 23 and 24: As in Experiment 1, we assessed pho
- Page 25 and 26: simulation of masked priming. It is
- Page 27 and 28: items yielded this pattern; and at
- Page 29 and 30: K. Rastle, M. Brysbaert / Cognitive
- Page 31 and 32: Despite improvement in the analysis
- Page 33 and 34: K. Rastle, M. Brysbaert / Cognitive
- Page 35 and 36: K. Rastle, M. Brysbaert / Cognitive
- Page 37 and 38: K. Rastle, M. Brysbaert / Cognitive
- Page 39 and 40: K. Rastle, M. Brysbaert / Cognitive
- Page 41 and 42: flu phlue slaur DSD 727 669 0.15 0.
- Page 43 and 44: nerve nurve narve SDS 563 547 0.10
- Page 45 and 46: K. Rastle, M. Brysbaert / Cognitive
- Page 47 and 48: K. Rastle, M. Brysbaert / Cognitive
- Page 49: K. Rastle, M. Brysbaert / Cognitive