Orthographic and phonological contributions to flanker effects.

Christophe Cauchi, Bernard Lété, Jonathan Grainger
Author Information
  1. Christophe Cauchi: Laboratoire d'Étude des Mécanismes Cognitifs (EA 3082), Lyon 2 University, Lyon, France.
  2. Bernard Lété: Laboratoire d'Étude des Mécanismes Cognitifs (EA 3082), Lyon 2 University, Lyon, France.
  3. Jonathan Grainger: Laboratoire de Psychologie Cognitive, CNRS & Aix-Marseille University, 3 place Victor Hugo, 13331, Marseille, France. jonathan.grainger@univ-amu.fr.

Abstract

Does phonology contribute to effects of orthographically related flankers in the flankers task? In order to answer this question, we implemented the flanker equivalent of a pseudohomophone priming manipulation that has been widely used to demonstrate automatic phonological processing during visual word recognition. In Experiment 1, central target words were flanked on each side by either a pseudohomophone of the target (e.g., roze rose roze), an orthographic control pseudoword (rone rose rone), or an unrelated pseudoword (mirt rose mirt). Both the pseudohomophone and the orthographic control conditions produced faster and more accurate responses to central targets, but performance in these two conditions did not differ significantly. Experiment 2 tested the same stimuli in a masked priming paradigm and replicated the standard finding in French that pseudohomophone primes produce significantly faster responses to target words than orthographic control primes. Therefore, contrary to its impact on masked priming, phonology does not contribute to effects of flanker relatedness, which would appear to be driven primarily by orthographic overlap.

Keywords

References

  1. Brain Lang. 2004 Jul-Sep;90(1-3):299-310 [PMID: 15172547]
  2. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2014;67(6):1176-90 [PMID: 24417251]
  3. Psychophysiology. 2020 Aug;57(8):e13553 [PMID: 32091627]
  4. Trends Cogn Sci. 2016 Mar;20(3):171-179 [PMID: 26809725]
  5. Cognition. 1995 May;55(2):151-218; discussion 219-26 [PMID: 7789090]
  6. Lang Cogn Process. 2008;23(1):183-200 [PMID: 19590754]
  7. PLoS One. 2017 Mar 9;12(3):e0173720 [PMID: 28278305]
  8. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2013;66(11):2237-52 [PMID: 23768045]
  9. Psychol Rev. 2008 Jul;115(3):577-600 [PMID: 18729592]
  10. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2013;66(3):417-28 [PMID: 23477327]
  11. Psychon Bull Rev. 2001 Jun;8(2):221-43 [PMID: 11495111]
  12. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2013 Apr;39(2):526-38 [PMID: 22866764]
  13. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2017 Oct;70(10):1984-1996 [PMID: 27457807]
  14. Trends Cogn Sci. 2019 Jul;23(7):537-546 [PMID: 31138515]
  15. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2003 Nov;29(6):1256-69 [PMID: 14622059]
  16. Behav Res Methods. 2012 Jun;44(2):314-24 [PMID: 22083660]
  17. Psychol Rev. 2010 Jul;117(3):713-58 [PMID: 20658851]
  18. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2018 Feb;71(2):335-359 [PMID: 28376655]
  19. Psychol Rev. 2006 Apr;113(2):327-57 [PMID: 16637764]
  20. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2013 Dec 09;369(1634):20120397 [PMID: 24324240]
  21. Cogn Psychol. 2006 Sep;53(2):97-145 [PMID: 16554045]
  22. Q J Exp Psychol A. 1992 Oct;45(3):353-72 [PMID: 1308733]
  23. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2004 Feb;36(1):156-66 [PMID: 15190710]
  24. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1992 Feb;18(1):148-62 [PMID: 1532185]
  25. Trends Cogn Sci. 2019 Oct;23(10):811-812 [PMID: 31477388]
  26. Trends Cogn Sci. 2019 Oct;23(10):812-814 [PMID: 31477387]
  27. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2014 Feb;146:35-40 [PMID: 24370788]
  28. Front Psychol. 2011 Apr 13;2:54 [PMID: 21716577]
  29. Mem Cognit. 2018 May;46(4):589-599 [PMID: 29313291]
  30. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1994 Dec;123(4):331-53 [PMID: 7996120]
  31. J Cogn. 2019 Oct 04;2(1):43 [PMID: 31750415]
  32. Cognition. 2012 May;123(2):280-92 [PMID: 22357323]
  33. Psychol Bull. 1998 Jan;123(1):71-99 [PMID: 9461854]
  34. Can J Exp Psychol. 2005 Sep;59(3):209-17 [PMID: 16248500]

MeSH Term

Humans
Phonetics
Reaction Time
Reading

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0pseudohomophoneorthographiceffectsflankerprimingtargetrosecontrolphonologycontributeflankersphonologicalExperimentcentralwordsrozepseudowordronemirtconditionsfasterresponsessignificantlymaskedprimesorthographicallyrelatedtask?orderanswerquestionimplementedequivalentmanipulationwidelyuseddemonstrateautomaticprocessingvisualwordrecognition1flankedsideeitheregunrelatedproducedaccuratetargetsperformancetwodiffer2testedstimuliparadigmreplicatedstandardfindingFrenchproduceThereforecontraryimpactrelatednessappeardrivenprimarilyoverlapOrthographiccontributionsFlankerstaskPhonologyPseudohomophonesReading

Similar Articles

Cited By