130 K. Rastle, M. Brysbaert / Cognitive Psychology 53 (2006) 97–1457. General discussionThe empirical and computational research reported <strong>in</strong> this article had two aims. Ourfirst aim was to settle the empirical issue of whether or not there is a masked <strong>phonological</strong><strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong> effect on <strong>English</strong> visual word recognition. To meet this aim, we first conducted anexhaustive meta-analytic literature review that exam<strong>in</strong>ed the evidence <strong>for</strong> these <strong>effects</strong> <strong>in</strong>each of the five experimental paradigms <strong>in</strong> which they have been studied. We followedour meta-analysis by conduct<strong>in</strong>g two new experiments, which <strong>in</strong>vestigated whether these<strong>effects</strong> emerge <strong>in</strong> the lexical decision task, and which addressed various methodologicalissues identified <strong>in</strong> our analysis of previous research. Our second aim was to contributeto a firmer assessment of the theoretical implications of masked <strong>phonological</strong> <strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong><strong>effects</strong> than has so far been possible. In particular, we wished to discover the extent towhich these <strong>effects</strong> actually pose difficulties <strong>for</strong> weak <strong>phonological</strong> theories of visual wordrecognition. To meet this aim, we studied the DRC model of visual word recognition(Coltheart et al., 2001) <strong>in</strong> the context of masked <strong>phonological</strong> <strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>effects</strong>, under severalparameterizations that varied the strength of the contribution of assembled phonologyto the recognition process.7.1. <strong>Masked</strong> <strong>phonological</strong> <strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>effects</strong>: Are they real?In respect of our first aim, our meta-analytic literature review and the new experimentsthat we report not only demonstrate the reality of masked <strong>phonological</strong> <strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>effects</strong>, butalso establish <strong>for</strong> the first time their size. Our analysis of the published literature revealedsmall but significant masked <strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>effects</strong> <strong>in</strong> all five of the paradigms <strong>in</strong> which these<strong>effects</strong> have been studied. This analysis revealed an effect <strong>in</strong> <strong>for</strong>ward-masked perceptualidentification averag<strong>in</strong>g 9%, an effect <strong>in</strong> backward-masked perceptual identification averag<strong>in</strong>g4%, an effect <strong>in</strong> <strong>for</strong>ward-masked read<strong>in</strong>g aloud averag<strong>in</strong>g 10 ms, an effect <strong>in</strong> <strong>for</strong>wardmaskedlexical decision averag<strong>in</strong>g 10 ms, and an effect <strong>in</strong> text read<strong>in</strong>g averag<strong>in</strong>g 8 ms.Effect-size calculations tak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to account the magnitude and variability of the effect yieldedr values (e.g., Rosnow & Rosenthal, 1996; Rosnow et al., 2000) of between .20 and .30,<strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g a small- to medium-sized effect. Our own empirical work confirmed the existenceof the <strong>phonological</strong> <strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong> effect <strong>in</strong> <strong>for</strong>ward-masked visual lexical decision. We observed a13-ms effect (r = .40) when there was a correlation between the pseudohomophone statusof the prime and the response (as there has been <strong>in</strong> previous studies). The effect persistedwhen this correlation was removed and when participants may have been biased aga<strong>in</strong>st<strong>phonological</strong> recod<strong>in</strong>g of the visual <strong>in</strong>put—though the size of the effect was reduced, at9ms(r = .19). This dataset provides a benchmark <strong>for</strong> consideration <strong>in</strong> future computationalmodell<strong>in</strong>g of visual word recognition. Given the low effect sizes that we observed <strong>in</strong> ourown studies and <strong>in</strong> previous literature, we believe that the null <strong>effects</strong> cited <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>troductionto this article (e.g., Coltheart & Woollams, unpublished; Forster & Mahoney, unpublished;Holyk & Pexman, 2004) were probably due to a lack of sufficient power.These empirical f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs enable us to make some important generalizations about thenature of visual word process<strong>in</strong>g. First, our f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs suggest that a <strong>phonological</strong> code isassembled quickly from the visual stimulus, and <strong>in</strong>fluences the recognition process fromits earliest stages. Our f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs also suggest that <strong>phonological</strong> assembly occurs without<strong>in</strong>tention (i.e., under conditions <strong>in</strong> which the visual stimulus is consciously imperceptible)and, at least <strong>in</strong> the brief exposure conditions explored <strong>in</strong> our research, <strong>in</strong> a manner that is
K. Rastle, M. Brysbaert / Cognitive Psychology 53 (2006) 97–145 131not subject to strategic control (i.e., it cannot be ‘turned off’ <strong>in</strong> response to the demands ofthe stimulus environment). Thus, our f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs appear to v<strong>in</strong>dicate claims by strong <strong>phonological</strong>theorists that <strong>phonological</strong> assembly is a process that operates rapidly and automatically.However, it is our position that neither our f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs nor those of previous<strong>in</strong>vestigators (e.g., Drieghe & Brysbaert, 2002; Ferrand & Gra<strong>in</strong>ger, 1992; Lukatela & Turvey,1994b; Xu & Perfetti, 1999) can be used to argue that <strong>phonological</strong> assembly is anobligatory component of visual word recognition. Such an argument could be lodged onlyon the basis of neuropsychological studies or <strong>in</strong>tervention studies (e.g., transcranial magneticstimulation) demonstrat<strong>in</strong>g that visual word recognition is impossible <strong>in</strong> the absenceof <strong>phonological</strong> recod<strong>in</strong>g.7.2. <strong>Masked</strong> <strong>phonological</strong> <strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>effects</strong>: Do they matter?Many lead<strong>in</strong>g researchers have argued that the characterization of <strong>phonological</strong> assemblyprovided by masked <strong>phonological</strong> <strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>effects</strong>, and supported by our own empirical<strong>in</strong>vestigation, is at odds with theories that consider visual word recognition to be a processthat is driven primarily by the analysis of orthographic <strong>for</strong>m (i.e., weak <strong>phonological</strong> theories).Thus, <strong>in</strong> respect of our second aim, we studied several parameterizations of theDRC model of visual word recognition (Coltheart et al., 2001) <strong>in</strong> the context of these<strong>effects</strong>. The DRC model posits that words are recognized (<strong>in</strong> e.g., lexical decision) onthe basis of activation <strong>in</strong> orthographic lexical representations. Crucially, these representationsare activated not only via direct <strong>in</strong>put from letter-level representations but also via<strong>in</strong>direct <strong>in</strong>put from a <strong>phonological</strong> assembly procedure (see Fig. 1). It is this <strong>in</strong>direct <strong>in</strong>putthat has been thought to provide a basis <strong>for</strong> simulat<strong>in</strong>g fast <strong>phonological</strong> <strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>effects</strong>on lexical decision (Coltheart & Rastle, 1994).The results of our simulations were unambiguous. These simulations demonstrated (a)that the DRC model runn<strong>in</strong>g under the standard set of parameters <strong>for</strong> lexical decisionshows no scope whatsoever <strong>for</strong> simulat<strong>in</strong>g our f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs and (b) that alterations to the operationof the <strong>phonological</strong> assembly procedure (e.g., mak<strong>in</strong>g it operate <strong>in</strong> a rapid and nearparallelmanner) do not improve the situation. Further alterations to the model designedto (a) strengthen the contribution of the <strong>in</strong>direct <strong>phonological</strong> pathway to the activation o<strong>for</strong>thographic units and (b) weaken the <strong>in</strong>fluence of the orthographic characteristics of ourstimuli on the activation of orthographic units yielded a parameter set that did show scope<strong>for</strong> simulat<strong>in</strong>g a fast <strong>phonological</strong> <strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong> effect. However, these alterations were so radicalthat they rendered the model unable to read aloud exception words. Furthermore,these alterations could not be justified strategically with respect to the demands of the lexicaldecision task, s<strong>in</strong>ce they impaired considerably the model’s ability to per<strong>for</strong>m that task(i.e., discrim<strong>in</strong>ate between words and nonwords). These simulations appear to <strong>in</strong>dicatethat, at least at the specific level of the DRC model, masked <strong>phonological</strong> <strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>effects</strong>do matter: Some aspect of the DRC model must be false. Exactly which aspect of the DRCmodel is falsified by these <strong>effects</strong> is an issue that we will return to <strong>in</strong> the follow<strong>in</strong>g section.The implications of masked <strong>phonological</strong> <strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>effects</strong> extend much further than theDRC model, however. Indeed, our simulations reveal that these <strong>effects</strong> present one half ofa general dilemma that must be faced by any theory of <strong>English</strong> skilled read<strong>in</strong>g. That dilemmais to account, simultaneously, <strong>for</strong> both the masked <strong>phonological</strong> <strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong> effect on lexicaldecision and the correct read<strong>in</strong>g aloud of irregular words. On the one hand, the degreeof spell<strong>in</strong>g-sound irregularity <strong>in</strong> <strong>English</strong> appears to require a <strong>phonological</strong> assembly
- 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 and 14: Table 5Studies of English phonologi
- Page 15 and 16: K. Rastle, M. Brysbaert / Cognitive
- 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: 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