One Process, Not Two, in Reading Aloud: Lexical Analogies Do the Work of Non-Lexical Rules

1981 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 397-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janice Kay ◽  
Anthony Marcel
Keyword(s):  
Oral Reading ◽  
Reading Aloud ◽  
Mixed List ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Dual Process Theory ◽  
Process Theory ◽  
Alternative View ◽  
Single Process ◽  
Biasing Effects ◽  
Lexical Rules

It is widely held that there are two (non-semantic) processes by which oral reading may be achieved: (a) by known words visually addressing lexical storage of their complete orthography and phonology; (b) by parsing a letter string into graphemes which are translated by rule into phonemes. Irregular words (HAVE) rely on the former, new and non-words rely on the latter. Recent evidence casts doubt on this view; to meet some of this data a revised version is presented. An alternative view is that the phonology of both words and non-words, at each encounter, is retrieved by analogy with all known words having matching segments. In a mixed list of words and non-words, presented singly for pronunciation, phonologically ambiguous non-words (NOUCH) were preceded critically by words with the same ambiguous segments, either pronounced regularly (COUCH) or irregularly (TOUCH). Standard (and revised) dual-process theory predicts that preceding words will not affect pronunciation of non-words; analogy theory predicts that they will. Significant biasing effects, compared to control conditions, support analogy theory, but a further modification to dual-process theory enables it to deal with these results. However the presence in critical non-words of morphemes pronounced consistently or inconsistently with the biased pronunciations significantly affected biasing. This makes the case for lexical analogy theory even stronger. Formal knowledge (descriptive spelling-sound rules) may be used consciously, but does not reflect tacit processes in oral reading, which are better described by a single-process lexical analogy model.

scholarly journals Subliminal influence on preferences? A test of evaluative conditioning for brief visual conditioned stimuli using auditory unconditioned stimuli

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (9) ◽  
pp. 160935 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Heycke ◽  
Frederik Aust ◽  
Christoph Stahl
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Unconditioned Stimulus ◽  
Evaluative Conditioning ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Dual Process Theory ◽  
Process Theory ◽  
Conditioned Stimuli ◽  
Contingency Awareness ◽  
Single Process ◽  
Theory Versus

In the field of evaluative conditioning (EC), two opposing theories—propositional single-process theory versus dual-process theory—are currently being discussed in the literature. The present set of experiments test a crucial prediction to adjudicate between these two theories: Dual-process theory postulates that evaluative conditioning can occur without awareness of the contingency between conditioned stimulus (CS) and unconditioned stimulus (US); in contrast, single-process propositional theory postulates that EC requires CS-US contingency awareness. In a set of three studies, we experimentally manipulate contingency awareness by presenting the CSs very briefly, thereby rendering it unlikely to be processed consciously. We address potential issues with previous studies on EC with subliminal or near-threshold CSs that limited their interpretation. Across two experiments, we consistently found an EC effect for CSs presented for 1000 ms and consistently failed to find an EC effect for briefly presented CSs. In a third pre-registered experiment, we again found evidence for an EC effect with CSs presented for 1000 ms, and we found some indication for an EC effect for CSs presented for 20 ms.

scholarly journals Crossmodal evaluative conditioning with briefly presented visual conditioned stimuli

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Heycke ◽  
Frederik Aust ◽  
Christoph Stahl
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Unconditioned Stimulus ◽  
Evaluative Conditioning ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Dual Process Theory ◽  
Process Theory ◽  
Conditioned Stimuli ◽  
Contingency Awareness ◽  
Single Process ◽  
Theory Versus

In the field of evaluative conditioning (EC), two opposing theories—propositional single-process theory versus dual-process theory—are currently being discussed in the literature. The present set of experiments test a crucial prediction to adjudicate between these two theories: Dual-process theory postulates that evaluative conditioning can occur without awareness of the contingency between conditioned stimulus (CS) and unconditioned stimulus (US); in contrast, single-process propositional theory postulates that EC requires CS-US contingency awareness. In a set of three studies, we experimentally manipulate contingency awareness by presenting the CSs very briefly, thereby rendering it unlikely to be processed consciously. We address potential issues with previous studies on EC with subliminal or near-threshold CSs that limited their interpretation. Across two experiments, we consistently found an EC effect for CSs presented for 1000 ms and consistently failed to find an EC effect for briefly presented CSs. In a third pre-registered experiment, we again found evidence for an EC effect with CSs presented for 1000 ms, and we found some indication for an EC effect for CSs presented for 20 ms.

Reflective Knowledge

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chienkuo Mi ◽  
Shane Ryan
Keyword(s):  
Extended Cognition ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Dual Process Theory ◽  
Process Theory ◽  
Reflective Knowledge ◽  
Epistemological Disjunctivism ◽  
Recent Account

In this paper, we defend the claim that reflective knowledge is necessary for extended knowledge. We begin by examining a recent account of extended knowledge provided by Palermos and Pritchard (2013). We note a weakness with that account and a challenge facing theorists of extended knowledge. The challenge that we identify is to articulate the extended cognition condition necessary for extended knowledge in such a way as to avoid counterexample from the revamped Careless Math Student and Truetemp cases. We consider but reject Pritchard’s (2012b) epistemological disjunctivism as providing a model for doing so. Instead, we set out an account of reflection informed by Confucianism and dual-process theory. We make the case that reflective knowledge offers a way of overcoming the challenge identified. We show why such knowledge is necessary for extended knowledge, while building on Sosa’s (2012) account of meta-competence.

scholarly journals Dual Process Theory and Intermediate Effect: Are Faculty and Residents' Performance on Multiple-Choice, Licensing Exam Questions Different?

2015 ◽  
Vol 180 (suppl_4) ◽  
pp. 92-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ting Dong ◽  
Steven J. Durning ◽  
Anthony R. Artino ◽  
Cees van der Vleuten ◽  
Eric Holmboe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
Reading Time ◽  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Dual Process Theory ◽  
Process Theory ◽  
Unexpected Finding ◽  
Licensing Examination ◽  
Intermediate Effect

ABSTRACT Background: Clinical reasoning is essential for the practice of medicine. Dual process theory conceptualizes reasoning as falling into two general categories: nonanalytic reasoning (pattern recognition) and analytic reasoning (active comparing and contrasting of alternatives). The debate continues regarding how expert performance develops and how individuals make the best use of analytic and nonanalytic processes. Several investigators have identified the unexpected finding that intermediates tend to perform better on licensing examination items than experts, which has been termed the “intermediate effect.” Purpose: We explored differences between faculty and residents on multiple-choice questions (MCQs) using dual process measures (both reading and answering times) to inform this ongoing debate. Method: Faculty (board-certified internists; experts) and residents (internal medicine interns; intermediates) answered live licensing examination MCQs (U.S. Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 Clinical Knowledge and American Board of Internal Medicine Certifying Examination) while being timed. We conducted repeated analysis of variance to compare the 2 groups on average reading time, answering time, and accuracy on various types of items. Results: Faculty and residents did not differ significantly in reading time [F (1, 35) = 0.01, p = 0.93], answering time [F (1, 35) = 0.60, p = 0.44], or accuracy [F (1, 35) = 0.24, p = 0.63] regardless of easy or hard items. Discussion: Dual process theory was not evidenced in this study. However, this lack of difference between faculty and residents may have been affected by the small sample size of participants and MCQs may not reflect how physicians made decisions in actual practice setting.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document