102 K. Rastle, M. Brysbaert / Cognitive Psychology 53 (2006) 97–145<strong>in</strong>vestigation both because it has been studied extensively aga<strong>in</strong>st benchmark <strong>effects</strong> ofvisual word recognition and because it has been highly <strong>in</strong>fluential <strong>in</strong> this area <strong>for</strong> a numberof years. Furthermore, the DRC model has been made available <strong>for</strong> public evaluation (seehttp://www.maccs.mq.edu.au/~max/DRC), thus allow<strong>in</strong>g us to exam<strong>in</strong>e its per<strong>for</strong>manceexplicitly on the actual stimuli used <strong>in</strong> our experiments. F<strong>in</strong>ally, the DRC model is controlledby a number of parameters, each of which can be altered <strong>in</strong>dependently. The factthat such parametric alterations are possible <strong>in</strong> the implemented model provides scope <strong>for</strong>an evaluation of a number of potential theories of visual word recognition, rang<strong>in</strong>g fromtheories that postulate a very ‘‘weak’’ <strong>phonological</strong> contribution to those that postulate a‘‘stronger’’ <strong>phonological</strong> contribution to this process.2. The masked <strong>phonological</strong> <strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong> effect <strong>in</strong> <strong>English</strong>: What are the data?Five experimental paradigms have been used to exam<strong>in</strong>e the <strong>in</strong>fluence of tachistoscopicallypresented homophonic stimuli on the process<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>English</strong> target words:<strong>for</strong>ward-masked perceptual identification, backward-masked perceptual identification,<strong>for</strong>ward-masked read<strong>in</strong>g aloud, <strong>for</strong>ward-masked lexical decision, and text read<strong>in</strong>g (eyemovements). Though our own experimental work will use the <strong>for</strong>ward-masked visual lexicaldecision task, we review evidence from all five of the paradigms both <strong>for</strong> completenessand to identify whether the appearance of the masked <strong>phonological</strong> <strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong> effect mightbe related to particular characteristics of the per<strong>for</strong>mance tasks themselves. Further, we<strong>in</strong>clude all studies that fall <strong>in</strong>to one of the five paradigms, even though some of these studiesclaimed to look <strong>for</strong> the boundary conditions of the masked <strong>phonological</strong> <strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong> effectby us<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>for</strong> example, very short stimulus-onset-asynchronies, homophones <strong>in</strong> the stimuluslist, or parafoveal nonword stimuli. This decision was made because researchers acrossparadigms have not been consistent <strong>in</strong> their views concern<strong>in</strong>g the conditions under whichthe masked <strong>phonological</strong> <strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong> effect occurs. Our discussion of each experimental paradigmis accompanied by tables present<strong>in</strong>g various details about each experiment considered<strong>in</strong> the meta-analysis. To enable readers to ask specific questions about the nature ofthe masked <strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong> effect, we present more <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation concern<strong>in</strong>g each experiment <strong>in</strong> thetables than we discuss <strong>in</strong> text (e.g., prime exposure duration, target duration). Our ownpurpose is to establish the empirical basis <strong>for</strong> a masked <strong>phonological</strong> <strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong> effect <strong>in</strong> <strong>English</strong>,however, and so we do not enterta<strong>in</strong> these more specific questions here.2.1. Forward-masked perceptual identificationIn the <strong>for</strong>ward-masked perceptual identification procedure (Humphreys et al., 1982), a<strong>for</strong>ward pattern mask (e.g., #########) is followed immediately by a briefly presentedword or nonword prime stimulus, which is then replaced by a briefly presented target stimulusand a backward pattern mask. Prime and target are presented <strong>in</strong> different cases, andparticipants are asked to identify the target word. The dependent variable is the percentageof target words correctly identified. Three papers (18 experiments) us<strong>in</strong>g this paradigm aresummarized <strong>in</strong> Table 1: Humphreys et al. (1982), Perfetti and Bell (1991, Experiment 3),and Booth, Perfetti, and MacWh<strong>in</strong>ney (1999). 11 Booth et al. (1999) reported <strong>phonological</strong> <strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>effects</strong> <strong>in</strong> different age groups of children. We describe hereonly data collected from the older children (6th grade).
Table 1Studies of <strong>English</strong> <strong>phonological</strong> <strong>prim<strong>in</strong>g</strong>, us<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>for</strong>ward-masked perceptual identification paradigmStudyTargetduration(ms)PrimelexicalityPrimeduration(ms)% Correct:<strong>phonological</strong>% Correct:graphemic% Correct:unrelatedPhonologicalgraphemicHumphreys et al. (1982), Exp. 1 35 Word 35 56 47 43 9 13Humphreys et al. (1982), Exp. 2 40 Word 40 58 47 45 11 13Humphreys et al. (1982), Exp. 3 35 Nonword 35 50 48 42 2 8Humphreys et al. (1982), Exp. 4a 40 Word 40 64 53 50 11 14Humphreys et al. (1982), Exp. 4b 40 Word 40 57 47 50 10 7Perfetti and Bell (1991), Exp. 2a 30 Nonword 25 34 34 30 0 4Perfetti and Bell (1991), Exp. 2b 30 Nonword 35 54 51 33 3 21Perfetti and Bell (1991), Exp. 2c 30 Nonword 45 52 44 20 8 32Perfetti and Bell (1991), Exp. 2d 30 Nonword 55 54 44 18 10 36Perfetti and Bell (1991), Exp. 2e 30 Nonword 65 46 37 18 9 28Booth et al. (1999), Exp. 1a 30 Nonword 30 76 70 33 6 43Booth et al. (1999), Exp. 1b 30 Nonword 30 65 48 28 17 37Booth et al. (1999), Exp. 1c 30 Nonword 30 65 53 30 12 35Booth et al. (1999), Exp. 1d 30 Nonword 30 54 39 26 15 28Booth et al. (1999), Exp. 2a 60 Nonword 60 71 69 18 2 53Booth et al. (1999), Exp. 2b 60 Nonword 60 56 42 22 14 34Booth et al. (1999), Exp. 2c 60 Nonword 60 62 52 20 10 42Booth et al. (1999), Exp. 2d 60 Nonword 60 52 37 17 15 35Note: Exp., Experiment.PhonologicalunrelatedK. Rastle, M. Brysbaert / Cognitive Psychology 53 (2006) 97–145 103
- Page 5: K. Rastle, M. Brysbaert / Cognitive
- 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 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