effet du nombre des graphèmes en Anglais - Aix Marseille Université
effet du nombre des graphèmes en Anglais - Aix Marseille Université
effet du nombre des graphèmes en Anglais - Aix Marseille Université
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
App<strong>en</strong>dice I 239consist<strong>en</strong>t words are slowest, with the two monodirectionally inconsist<strong>en</strong>t words being intermediate. Thus,while in Stone et al.'s data, the differ<strong>en</strong>ce betwe<strong>en</strong> the three inconsist<strong>en</strong>t word groups are not important,MROM-P predicts a differ<strong>en</strong>ce betwe<strong>en</strong> monodiretionally and bidirectionally inconsist<strong>en</strong>t words. Thus themodel predicts a pattern that is actually closer to the one observed by Ziegler et al. (in press c) in Fr<strong>en</strong>ch : Incontrast to the finding of Stone et al., these authors observed that doubly inconsist<strong>en</strong>t words pro<strong>du</strong>cedslightly longer RTs than one-way inconsist<strong>en</strong>t words. Giv<strong>en</strong> this incompatibility in the empirical results,and giv<strong>en</strong> that Ziegler et al.'s study used more carefully controlled stimulus materials than Stone et al., asindicated above, it would be premature to conclude that the MROM-P failed this second criterion set test.Tests using the Fr<strong>en</strong>ch stimuli of Ziegler et al. (in press c) will have to wait until a Fr<strong>en</strong>ch version of theMROM-P is available.FF&FB - conFFcon & FBi ncFFi nc & FBcon0. 8M R OMFF&FB - i nc0. 8M R OM - P0. 70. 70. 60. 60. 50. 50. 40. 41 0 a0. 315 20 25 30 35Cy cl es0. 315 20 25 30 35Cy cl es800Stone et al . ( 1 9 9 7 )78076074028720M R OM1 2 3 4Categor y28M R OM - P27272626252524241 0 b231 2 3 4Categor y231 2 3 4Categor yFigure 10 : Simulations with Stone et al.'s (1997) stimuli. Panel a shows mean orthographic unit activity overtime for the four categories of words, for both the MROM and MROM-P. Panel b gives obtained and predicted effectson response times to the four word groups : 1 = Feedforward and Feedback consist<strong>en</strong>t ; 2 = Feedforward consist<strong>en</strong>tand Feedback inconsist<strong>en</strong>t ; 3 = Feedforward inconsist<strong>en</strong>t and Feedback consist<strong>en</strong>t ; 4 = Feedforward and Feedbackinconsist<strong>en</strong>t.However, as an additional guard against a possible confirmation bias, we ran an additional test of themodel using the nonword stimuli of Stone et al. (1997). The interesting result concerning RTs to nonwordswas the abs<strong>en</strong>ce of a significant differ<strong>en</strong>ce betwe<strong>en</strong> feedback consist<strong>en</strong>t and feedback inconsist<strong>en</strong>t nonwords.If MROM-P captures this null-effect, we can be more confid<strong>en</strong>t that its failure to simulate the null differ<strong>en</strong>ceconcerning RTs to doubly inconsist<strong>en</strong>t vs. one-way inconsist<strong>en</strong>t words does not pres<strong>en</strong>t a fundam<strong>en</strong>tal problemwith the model. The data in Figure 11 show that this is the case.Thus, MROM-P successfully stood the second criterion set test. This allows us to hypothesize that thepseudohomophone and bidirectional consist<strong>en</strong>cy effects are differ<strong>en</strong>t stimulus-specific manifestations of in-