Frequency effects and lexical access: On the interpretation of null pseudohomophone base-word frequency effects.

Author(s):  
Ron Borowsky ◽  
Michael E. J. Masson
2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabrina Gerth ◽  
Julia Festman

Research on reading development attempts to explain differences in the reading patterns of adults and children. Previous studies, which typically analyzed word length and frequency effects in developing readers, often focused on dyslexic or dysfluent readers. Similar to previous studies, we investigated the effects of word length and word frequency on the eye movements of children and added several novel aspects: We tested 66 typically developing German-speaking children. Children’s oral reading fluency was used as measure of reading ability. Only fast readers (n = 34, mean age 10.9 ± 0.9 years) and slow readers (n = 32, 11.2 ± 0.9 years) participated in an eye-tracking experiment and silently read an age-appropriate original narrative text from a children’s book. The analysis of silent reading of the entire text confirmed the earlier group classification. To analyze word length and frequency, we selected 40 nouns as target words in the text. We found significant effects of word length and word frequency for all children in the expected direction. For fast readers, we detected significant interactions of word length and frequency in first fixation duration, gaze duration, and total reading time. These revealed a frequency effect for long, but not short words. This suggests lexical whole-word processing with a fast activation of the word’s lexical entry for shorter words and an application of the nonlexical route of the dual route cascaded model (DRC) with a slower lexical access to whole word forms for long words. Slow readers demonstrated a strong sensitivity to word length, indicating a slower or delayed lexical access to orthographic word forms. Additionally, they exhibited weaker word frequency effects. These findings suggest a developmental view of reading in typically developing children in accordance with the DRC, with nonlexical serial decoding as the seemingly prominent reading strategy of slow readers and lexical whole-word recognition as the prominent reading strategy of fast readers.


Author(s):  
Chris M. Herdman ◽  
Jo-Anne LeFevre ◽  
Stephanie L. Greenham

1996 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 1044-1061 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris M. Herdman ◽  
Jo-Anne LeFevre ◽  
Stephanie L. Greenham

The advantage of naming pseudohomophones over non-pseudohomophones has been interpreted as reflecting the contribution of whole-word lexical representations in phonological coding. A whole-word interpretation was further supported by Taft and Russell (1992), who reported a pseudohomophone frequency effect such that pseudohomophones were named faster if they corresponded to high- than to low-frequency base-words (e.g. poast vs. hoast). Experiment 1 replicated this pseudohomophone frequency effect using the Taft and Russell items. Further analyses showed, however, that the pseudohomophones in Taft and Russell's high-frequency group were more orthographically similar to words than the pseudohomophones in the low-frequency group. These differences in orthography may have been the cause of the “frequency” effects. In Experiment 2, a new set of high- and low-frequency pseudohomophones was constructed that were matched on orthographic factors (i.e. SPBF and N). With these items, a standard pseudohomophone advantage was found such that pseudohomophones were named faster and more accurately than non-pseudohomophones. However, in contrast to Taft and Russell's results, pseudohomophone naming was not related to base-word frequency. We conclude that the pseudohomophone advantage occurs at a postlexical stage in non-word naming.


Author(s):  
Batia Laufer ◽  
Stuart Webb ◽  
Su Kyung Kim ◽  
Beverley Yohanan

Abstract The study investigates derivational knowledge of second language (L2) learners as a function of four variables: learner proficiency, word family frequency, derived word frequency, and affix type as suggested by two affix difficulty hierarchies. Seventy-nine EFL learners at two proficiency levels received two tests, the VST – Vocabulary Size Test (Nation & Beglar, 2007) and a custom-made ‘Derivatives Test’, which included derived forms of VST base words. We performed the following within-participant comparisons: knowledge of base words and knowledge of their derived forms, knowledge of high-, medium-, and low-frequency derived forms, and knowledge of derivatives at different affix difficulty levels. Knowledge of basewords and their derivatives was statistically equivalent for advanced learners. However, a difference was found between the categories for less advanced learners. The findings also revealed learner proficiency and base word frequency effects, partial support for the two affix difficulty hierarchies, and no support for the effect of derivative frequency.


2020 ◽  
Vol 228 (4) ◽  
pp. 254-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro S. Mendes ◽  
Karlos Luna ◽  
Pedro B. Albuquerque

Abstract. The present study tested if word frequency effects on judgments of learning (JOLs) are exclusively due to beliefs or if the direct experience with the items also plays a role. Across four experiments, participants read prompts about the frequency of the words (high/low), which could be congruent/incongruent with the words’ actual frequency. They made pre-study JOLs (except Experiment 1b), immediate JOLs, and completed a recall test. If experience drives the effect, JOLs should be based on actual word frequency rather than the prompts. Results showed higher pre-study JOLs for prompts of high frequency, but higher immediate JOLs for high-frequency words regardless of the prompt, suggesting an effect of direct experience with the words. In Experiments 2 and 3, we manipulated participants’ beliefs, finding a small effect of beliefs on JOLs. We conclude that, regarding word frequency, direct experience with the items seems more relevant than beliefs when making immediate JOLs.


2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marianna D. Eddy ◽  
Jonathan Grainger ◽  
Danielle Lopez ◽  
Phillip J. Holcomb

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document