Masked phonological priming effects in English - Center for Reading ...
Masked phonological priming effects in English - Center for Reading ...
Masked phonological priming effects in English - Center for Reading ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
144 K. Rastle, M. Brysbaert / Cognitive Psychology 53 (2006) 97–145Lukatela, G., & Turvey, M. T. (1994b). Visual lexical access is <strong>in</strong>itially <strong>phonological</strong>: 2. Evidence from<strong>phonological</strong> <strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong> by homophones and pseudohomophones. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,123, 331–353.Lukatela, G., & Turvey, M. T. (2000). An evaluation of the two-cycles model of <strong>phonological</strong> assembly. Journalof Memory and Language, 42, 183–207.Paap, K. R., & Noel, R. W. (1991). Dual-route models of pr<strong>in</strong>t to sound—Still a good horse race. PsychologicalResearch, 53, 13–24.Perea, M., & Lupker, S. J. (2003). Does jugde activate COURT? Transposed-letter confusability <strong>effects</strong> <strong>in</strong> maskedassociative <strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong>. Memory & Cognition, 31, 829–841.Perea, M., & Lupker, S. J. (2004). Can CANISO activate CASINO? Transposed-letter similarity <strong>effects</strong> withnonadjacent letter positions. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 231–246.Perfetti, C. A., Bell, L. C., & Delaney, S. M. (1988). Automatic (prelexical) phonetic activation <strong>in</strong> silent wordread<strong>in</strong>g: Evidence from backward mask<strong>in</strong>g. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 59–70.Perfetti, C. A., & Bell, L. C. (1991). Phonemic activation dur<strong>in</strong>g the first 40 ms of word identification: Evidencefrom backward mask<strong>in</strong>g and <strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong>. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 473–485.Perry, C., & Ziegler, J. C. (2002). On the nature of <strong>phonological</strong> assembly: Evidence from backward mask<strong>in</strong>g.Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 31–59.Pexman, P. M., Lupker, S. J., & Jared, D. (2001). Homophone <strong>effects</strong> <strong>in</strong> lexical decision. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology: Learn<strong>in</strong>g, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 139–156.Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., & Patterson, K. (1996). Understand<strong>in</strong>g normal andimpaired word read<strong>in</strong>g: Computational pr<strong>in</strong>ciples <strong>in</strong> quasi-regular doma<strong>in</strong>s. Psychological Review, 103,56–115.Pollatsek, A., Lesch, M., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1992). Phonological codes are used <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>tegrat<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation across saccades <strong>in</strong> word identification and read<strong>in</strong>g. Journal of Experimental Psychology: HumanPerception and Per<strong>for</strong>mance, 18, 148–162.Pugh, K. R., Rexer, K., & Katz, L. (1994). Evidence of flexible cod<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> visual word recognition. Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Human Perception and Per<strong>for</strong>mance, 20, 807–825.Rastle, K., & Coltheart, M. (1998). Whammies and double whammies: The effect of length on nonword read<strong>in</strong>g.Psychonomic Bullet<strong>in</strong> & Review, 5, 277–282.Rastle, K., & Coltheart, M. (1999). Serial and strategic <strong>effects</strong> <strong>in</strong> read<strong>in</strong>g aloud. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology: Human Perception and Per<strong>for</strong>mance, 25, 482–503.Rastle, K. & Coltheart, M. (<strong>in</strong> press). Is there serial process<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the read<strong>in</strong>g system; and are there localrepresentations? In S. Andrews (Ed.), From <strong>in</strong>kmarks to ideas: Current issues <strong>in</strong> lexical process<strong>in</strong>g. Hove:Psychology Press.Rastle, K., Harr<strong>in</strong>gton, J., & Coltheart, M. (2002). 358,534 nonwords: The ARC nonword database. QuarterlyJournal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 1339–1362.Rastle, K., Harr<strong>in</strong>gton, J., Coltheart, M., & Palethorpe, S. (2000). Read<strong>in</strong>g aloud beg<strong>in</strong>s when the computation ofphonology is complete. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Per<strong>for</strong>mance, 26,1178–1191.Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (1988). A retrieval theory of <strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong>. Psychological Review, 95, 385–408.Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1987). Eye-movements <strong>in</strong> read<strong>in</strong>g—A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.),Attention and per<strong>for</strong>mance XII. Hove, Sussex: Erlbaum.Rayner, K., Sereno, S. C., Lesch, M. F., & Pollatsek, A. (1995). Phonological codes are automatically activateddur<strong>in</strong>g read<strong>in</strong>g: Evidence from an eye movement <strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong> paradigm. Psychological Science, 6, 26–32.Reynvoet, B., Caessens, B., & Brysbaert, M. (2002). Automatic stimulus-response associations may besemantically mediated. Psychonomic Bullet<strong>in</strong> & Review, 9, 107–112.Roberts, M. A., Rastle, K., Coltheart, M., & Besner, D. (2003). When parallel process<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> visual wordrecognition is not enough: new evidence from nam<strong>in</strong>g. Psychonomic Bullet<strong>in</strong> & Review, 10, 405–414.Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (1996). Comput<strong>in</strong>g contrasts, effect sizes, and counternulls on other people’spublished data: General procedures <strong>for</strong> research consumers. Psychological Methods, 1, 331–340.Rosnow, R. L., Rosenthal, R., & Rub<strong>in</strong>, D. B. (2000). Contrasts and correlations <strong>in</strong> effect-size estimation.Psychological Science, 11, 446–453.Schoonbaert, S., & Gra<strong>in</strong>ger, J. (2004). Letter position cod<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ted word perception: Effects of repeated andtransposed letters. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19, 333–367.Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition andnam<strong>in</strong>g. Psychological Review, 96, 523–568.