Top

Gepubliceerd in:

28-10-2018 | Original Article

Does CaSe-MiXinG disrupt the access to lexico-semantic information?

Auteurs: Manuel Perea, María Fernández-López, Ana Marcet

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 4/2020

Abstract

Mixed-case WoRdS disrupt performance in word recognition tasks and sentence reading. There is, however, a controversial issue around this finding as the hindered performance could be related to impoverished lexico-semantic access or to lack of visual familiarity. The present experiments aim to examine whether there is a genuine mixed-case effect during lexico-semantic access or whether the effect is driven by a visual familiarity bias (i.e., lack of familiarity may induce a bias toward “no” responses in word/nonword decisions). Participants were presented with same-case vs. mixed-case items in a word/nonword discrimination task (lexical decision) and in a task that requires access to semantic information (semantic categorization). In lexical decision, responses were faster and more accurate to same-case words than to mixed-case words, whereas the nonwords showed the opposite pattern. In two semantic categorization experiments, we failed to find any signs of a case-mixing effect for words. Therefore, the case-mixing effect in word recognition is not due to an impoverished access to lexico-semantic information but rather to lack of visual familiarity.

vorige artikel Does gesture strengthen sensorimotor knowledge of objects? The case of the size-weight illusion

volgende artikel The impact of training methodology and category structure on the formation of new categories from existing knowledge

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

What we should also note is that there is ERP evidence that N170 amplitude is sensitive to case mixing (Lien, Allen, & Crawford, 2012), and this may be taken as an early signature of case-mixing. However, as Perea et al. (2015) noted, “it is difficult to make strong inferences on the connection between this early, perceptual ERP effect and lexical access” (p. 42).

We thank Ken Forster for suggesting this explanation.

Allen, P. A., Wallace, B., & Weber, T. A. (1995). Influence of case type, word frequency, and exposure duration on visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 914–934. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.21.4.914.CrossRefPubMed

Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.CrossRef

Besner, D. (1983). Basic decoding components in reading: Two dissociable feature extraction processes. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 37, 429–438. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0080739.CrossRef

Besner, D., & McCann, R. S. (1987). Word frequency and pattern distortion in visual word identification and production: An examination of four classes of models. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 201–219). Hove: Erlbaum.

Blais, C., & Besner, D. (2005). When the visual format of the color carrier word does and does not modulate the Stroop effect. Memory & Cognition, 33, 1337–1344. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193366.CrossRef

Brysbaert, M., Mandera, P., & Keuleers, E. (2017). The word frequency effect in word processing: An updated review. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27, 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417727521.CrossRef

Duchon, A., Perea, M., Sebastián-Gallés, N., Martí, A., & Carreiras, M. (2013). EsPal: One-stop shopping for Spanish word properties. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 1246–1258. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0326-1.CrossRefPubMed

Forster, K. I. (1998). The pros and cons of masked priming. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 203–233. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023202116609.CrossRefPubMed

Forster, K. I., & Davis, C. (1984). Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 680–698. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.10.4.680.CrossRef

Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116–124. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0493-8.CrossRef

Frederiksen, J. R. (1978). Assessment of lexical decoding and lexical skills and their relation to reading proficiency. In A. M. Lesgold, J. W. Pellegrino, S. D. Fokkema & R. Glaser (Eds.), Cognitive psychology and instruction (pp. 153–169). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRef

Houston, J. R., Rossmiller, A. C., & Allen, P. A. (2016). Case mixing does not modulate the Stroop effect. Poster presented at the 2016 Midwestern Psychological Association Annual Conference, Chicago, IL.

Humphreys, G. W., Mayall, K., & Cooper, A. C. G. (2003). The PIG in sPrInG: Evidence on letter grouping from the reading of buried words. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 939–946. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03196555.CrossRef

Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2010). Wuggy: A multilingual pseudoword generator. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 627–633. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.42.3.627.CrossRefPubMed

Kinoshita, S. (1987). Case alternation effect: Two types of word recognition? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39A, 701–720. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748708401810.CrossRef

Kinoshita, S., & Norris, D. (2010). Does the familiarity bias hypothesis explain why there is no masked priming for “NO” decisions? Memory & Cognition, 39, 319–334. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-010-0021-8.CrossRef

Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13.CrossRef

Lavidor, M., Ellis, A. W., & Pansky, A. (2002). Case alternation and length effects in lateralized word recognition: Studies of English and Hebrew. Brain and Cognition, 50, 257–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0278-2626(02)00508-0.CrossRefPubMed

Lee, C. H., Honig, R., & Lee, Y. (2002). Phonological recoding of mixed-case words in the priming task. Reading Psychology, 23, 199–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710290061328.CrossRef

Lien, M. C., Allen, P. A., & Crawford, C. (2012). Electrophysiological evidence of different loci for case-mixing and word frequency effects in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 677–684. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0251-9.CrossRef

Mayall, K., & Humphreys, G. W. (1996). Case mixing and the task-sensitive disruption of lexical processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 278–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.22.2.278.CrossRef

Mayall, K., Humphreys, G. W., & Olson, A. (1997). Disruption to word or letter processing? The origins of case-mixing effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 1275–1286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.23.5.1275.CrossRefPubMed

Miozzo, M., & Caramazza, A. (2003). When more is less: A counterintuitive effect of distractor frequency in the picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 228–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.132.2.228.CrossRef

Perea, M., Jiménez, M., Talero, F., & López-Cañada, S. (2015). Letter-case information and the identification of brand names. British Journal of Psychology, 106, 162–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12071.CrossRefPubMed

Perea, M., Marcet, A., & Vergara-Martínez, M. (2018). Are you taking the fastest route to the RESTAURANT? The role of the usual letter-case configuration of words in lexical decision. Experimental Psychology, 65, 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000391.CrossRefPubMed

Perea, M., Rosa, E., & Marcet, A. (2017). Where is the locus of the lowercase advantage during sentence reading? Acta Psychologica, 177, 30–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.04.007.CrossRefPubMed

Perea, M., Vergara-Martínez, M., & Gomez, P. (2015). Resolving the locus of cAsE aLtErNaTiOn effects in visual word recognition: Evidence from masked priming. Cognition, 142, 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.007.CrossRefPubMed

Peressotti, F., Cubelli, R., & Job, R. (2003). On recognizing proper names: The orthographic cue hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 87–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00004-5.CrossRefPubMed

Quinn, W. M., & Kinoshita, S. (2008). Congruence effect in semantic categorization with masked primes with narrow and broad categories. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 286–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.03.004.CrossRef

R Development Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D. L., & Rayner, K. (1998). Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 105, 125–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.105.1.125.CrossRefPubMed

Reichle, E. D., Tokowicz, N., Liu, Y., & Perfetti, C. A. (2011). Testing an assumption of the E-Z Reader model of eye-movement control during reading: Using event-related potentials to examine the familiarity check. Psychophysiology, 48, 993–1003. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01169.x.CrossRefPubMed

Reingold, E. M., & Rayner, K. (2006). Examining the word identification stages hypothesized by the E-Z Reader model. Psychological Science, 17, 742–746. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01775.x.CrossRefPubMed

Reingold, E. M., Yang, J., & Rayner, K. (2010). The time course of word frequency and case alternation effects on fixation times in reading: Evidence for lexical control of eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1677–1683. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019959.CrossRefPubMed

Smith, F. (1969). Familiarity of configuration vs. discriminability of features in the visual identification of words. Psychonomic Science, 14, 261–263. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03329112.CrossRef

Smith, R., Lott, D., & Cronnell, B. (1969). The effect of type size and case alternation on word identification. American Journal of Psychology, 82, 248–253. https://doi.org/10.2307/1421250.CrossRefPubMed

Twomey, T., Kawabata Duncan, K. J., Hogan, J. S., Morita, K., Umeda, K., Sakai, K., et al. (2013). Dissociating visual form from lexical frequency using Japanese. Brain and Language, 125, 184–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2012.02.003.CrossRefPubMed

Wimmer, H., Ludersdorfer, P., Richlan, F., & Kronbichler, M. (2016). Visual experience shapes orthographic representations in the visual word form area. Psychological Science, 27, 1240–1248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616657319.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Does CaSe-MiXinG disrupt the access to lexico-semantic information?
Auteurs: Manuel Perea
María Fernández-López
Ana Marcet
Publicatiedatum: 28-10-2018
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 4/2020
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1111-7

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2020

Thinner than yourself: self-serving bias in body size estimation

Original Article

Learning in the absence of overt practice: a novel (previously unseen) stimulus can trigger retrieval of an unpracticed response

Original Article

Left inferior parietal and posterior temporal cortices mediate the effect of action observation on semantic processing of objects: evidence from rTMS

Original Article

The diffusion model visualizer: an interactive tool to understand the diffusion model parameters

Open Access
Original Article

Attention scaling modulates the effective capacity of visual sensory memory

Original Article

The impact of training methodology and category structure on the formation of new categories from existing knowledge

Original Article

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Welkom bij Scalda & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Registreer

Login

Does CaSe-MiXinG disrupt the access to lexico-semantic information?

Abstract

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2020

Thinner than yourself: self-serving bias in body size estimation

Learning in the absence of overt practice: a novel (previously unseen) stimulus can trigger retrieval of an unpracticed response

Left inferior parietal and posterior temporal cortices mediate the effect of action observation on semantic processing of objects: evidence from rTMS

The diffusion model visualizer: an interactive tool to understand the diffusion model parameters

Attention scaling modulates the effective capacity of visual sensory memory

The impact of training methodology and category structure on the formation of new categories from existing knowledge

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Welkom bij Scalda & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Registreer

Login

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Thinner than yourself: self-serving bias in body size estimation

Learning in the absence of overt practice: a novel (previously unseen) stimulus can trigger retrieval of an unpracticed response

Left inferior parietal and posterior temporal cortices mediate the effect of action observation on semantic processing of objects: evidence from rTMS

The diffusion model visualizer: an interactive tool to understand the diffusion model parameters

Attention scaling modulates the effective capacity of visual sensory memory

The impact of training methodology and category structure on the formation of new categories from existing knowledge