Abstract
Four experiments were designed to investigate whether the frequency of words used to create pseudowords plays an important role in lexical decision. Computational models of the lexical decision task (e.g., the dual route cascaded model and the multiple read-out model) predict that latencies to lowfrequency pseudowords should be faster than latencies to high-frequency pseudowords. Consistent with this prediction, results showed that when the pseudowords were created by replacing one internal letter of the base word (Experiments 1 and 3), high-frequency pseudowords yielded slower latencies than low-frequency pseudowords. However, this effect occurred only in the leading edge of the response time (RT) distributions. When the pseudowords were created by transposing two adjacent internal letters (Experiment 2), high-frequency pseudowords produced slower latencies in the leading edge and in the bulk of the RT distributions. These results suggest that transposed-letter pseudowords may be more similar to their base words than replacement-letter pseudowords. Finally, when participants performed a go/no-go lexical decision task with one-letter different pseudowords (Experiment 4), high-frequency pseudowords yielded substantially faster latencies than low-frequency pseudowords, which suggests that the lexical entries of high-frequency words can be verified earlier than the lexical entries of low-frequency words. The implications of these results for models of word recognition and lexical decision are discussed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alameda, J. R., &Cuetos, F. (1995).Diccionario de frecuencia de las unidades lingüísticas del castellano [Dictionary of word frequency in Spanish]. Oviedo: Servicio de publicaciones de la Universidad de Oviedo.
Allen, P. A., &Emerson, P. L. (1991). Holism revisited: Evidence for independent word-level and letter-level processors during word and letter processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,17, 489–511.
Allen, P. A., McNeal, M., &Kvak, D. (1992). Perhaps the lexicon is coded as a function of word frequency.Journal of Memory & Language,31, 826–844.
Álvarez, C. J., Carreiras, M., &de Vega, M. (1992). Estudio estadístico de la ortografía castellana (2): Frecuencia de bigramas [The bigram frequency in written Spanish: A statistical study].Cognitiva,4, 105–125.
Andrews, S. (1996). Lexical retrieval and selection processes: Effects of transposed-letter confusability.Journal of Memory & Language,35, 775–800.
Andrews, S., &Heathcote, A. (2001). Distinguishing common and task-specific processes in word identification: A matter of some moment?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,27, 514–544.
Arduino, L. S., &Burani, C. (2004). Neighborhood effects on nonword visual processing in a language with shallow orthography.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,33, 75–95.
Balota, D. A., &Chumbley, J. I. (1984). Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,10, 340–357.
Balota, D. A., &Spieler, D. H. (1999). Word frequency, repetition, and lexicality effects in word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,128, 32–55.
Bourassa, D. C., &Besner, D. (1998). When do nonwords activate semantics? Implications for models of visual word recognition.Memory & Cognition,26, 61–74.
Bruner, J. S., &O’Dowd, D. (1958). A note on the informativeness of parts of words.Language & Speech,1, 98–101.
Carpenter, G. A., &Grossberg, S. (1987). A massively parallel architecture for a self-organizing neural pattern recognition machine.Computer Vision, Graphics, & Image Processing,37, 54–115.
Carreiras, M., Perea, M., &Grainger, J. (1997). Effects of orthographic neighborhood in visual word recognition: Cross-task comparisons.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 857–871.
Chambers, S. M. (1979). Letter and order information in lexical access.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,18, 225–241.
Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-a-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,12, 335–359.
Coltheart, M., Davelaar, E., Jonasson, J. F., &Besner, D. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. In S. Dornic (Ed.),Attention and performance VI (pp. 535–555). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., &Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud.Psychological Review,108, 204–256.
Davis, C. J. (1999).The self-organising lexical acquisition and recognition (SOLAR) model of visual word recognition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New South Wales.
Den Heyer, K., Goring, A., Gorgichuk, S., Richards, L., &Landry, M. (1988). Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? Repetition blocking suggests the affirmative.Canadian Journal of Psychology,42, 274–296.
Duchek, J. M., &Neely, J. H. (1989). A dissociative word-frequency X levels-of-processing interaction in episodic recognition and lexical decision tasks.Memory & Cognition,17, 148–162.
Forster, K. I. (1976). Accessing the mental lexicon. In R. J. Wales & E. W. Walker (Eds.),New approaches to language mechanisms (pp. 257–287). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Forster, K. I. (1989). Basic issues in lexical processing. In W. D. Marslen-Wilson (Ed.),Lexical representation and process (pp. 5–107). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Forster, K. I. (1994). Computational modeling and elementary process analysis in visual word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,20, 1292–1310.
Forster, K. I., &Shen, D. (1996). No enemies in the neighborhood: Absence of inhibitory effects in lexical decision and categorization.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 696–713.
Forster, K. I., &Veres, C. (1998). The prime lexicality effect: Formpriming as a function of prime awareness, lexical status, and discrimination difficulty.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,24, 498–514.
Frederiksen, J. R., &Kroll, J. F. (1976). Spelling and sound: Approaches to the internal lexicon.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,2, 361–379.
Gómez, P., Perea, M., & Ratcliff, R. (2002, April).Dinámica temporal de la activación léxica en pseudopalabras [Time course of lexical activation in pseudowords]. Paper presented at the fourth meeting of the Sociedad Española de Psicología Experimental, Oviedo, Spain.
Grainger, J. (2000). The trouble with Merge: Modeling speeded target detection.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,23, 331–332.
Grainger, J., &Jacobs, A. M. (1996). Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model.Psychological Review,103, 518–565.
Grossberg, S., &Stone, G. O. (1986). Neural dynamics of word recognition and recall: Attentional priming, learning and resonance.Psychological Review,93, 46–74.
Hintzman, D. L., &Curran, T. (1997). Comparing retrieval dynamics in recognition memory and lexical decision.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,126, 228–247.
Kinoshita, S., Taft, M., &Taplin, J. E. (1985). Nonword facilitation in a lexical decision task.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,11, 346–362.
Kwantes, P. J. K., &Mewhort, D. J. K. (1999). Modeling lexical decision and word naming as a retrieval process.Canadian Journal of Psychology,53, 306–315.
Lane, D. M., &Ashby, B. (1987). PsychLib: A library of machine language routines for controlling psychology experiments on the Apple Macintosh computer.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,19, 246–248.
O’Connor, R. E., &Forster, K. I. (1981). Criterion bias and search sequence bias in word recognition.Memory & Cognition,9, 78–92.
Paap, K. R., &Johansen, L. S. (1994). The case of the vanishing frequency effect: A retest of the verification model.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,20, 1129–1157.
Paap, K. R., Johansen, L. S., Chun, E., &Vonnahme, P. (2000). Neighborhood frequency does affect performance in the Reicher task: Encoding or decision?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,26, 1691–1720.
Paap, K. R., Newsome, S. L., McDonald, J. E., &Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1982). An activation-verification model for letter and word recognition: The word superiority effect.Psychological Review,89, 573–594.
Perea, M. (1998). Orthographic neighbours are not all equal: Evidence using an identification technique.Language & Cognitive Processes,13, 77–90.
Perea, M., GÓmez, P., & Ratcliff, R. (2003, September).A model of encoding letter positions: The overlap model. Paper presented at the 12th congress of the European Society for Cognitive Psychology, Granada, Spain.
Perea, M., &Lupker, S. J. (2003a). Does jugde activate COURT? Transposed-letter confusability effects in masked associative priming.Memory & Cognition,31, 829–841.
Perea, M., &Lupker, S. J. (2003b). Transposed-letter confusability effects in masked form priming. In S. Kinoshita & S. J. Lupker (Eds.),Masked priming: State of the art (pp. 97–120). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
Perea, M., &Lupker, S. J. (2004). CanCANISO activateCASINO? Transposed-letter similarity effects with nonadjacent letter positions.Journal of Memory & Language,51, 231–246.
Perea, M., &Pollatsek, A. (1998). The effects of neighborhood frequency in reading and lexical decision.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,24, 767–777.
Perea, M., Rosa, E., &GÓmez, C. (2002). Is the go/no-go lexical decision task an alternative to the yes/no lexical decision task?Memory & Cognition,30, 34–45.
Perea, M., Rosa, E., &GÓmez, C. (2003). Influence of neighborhood size and exposure duration on visual-word recognition: Evidence with the yes/no and the go/no-go lexical decision task.Perception & Psychophysics,65, 273–286.
Pollatsek, A., Perea, M., &Binder, K. (1999). The effects of neighborhood size in reading and lexical decision.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,25, 1142–1158.
Raaijmakers, J. G. W., Schrijnemakers, J. M. C., &Gremmen, F. (1999). How to deal with “the language-as-fixed-effect fallacy”: Common misconceptions and alternative solutions.Journal of Memory & Language,41, 416–426.
Rajaram, S., &Neely, J. H. (1992). Dissociative masked repetition priming and word frequency effects in lexical decision and episodic recognition tasks.Journal of Memory & Language,31, 152–182.
Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval.Psychological Review,85, 59–108.
Ratcliff, R. (1979). Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics.Psychological Bulletin,86, 446–461.
Ratcliff, R., GÓmez, P., &McKoon, G. (2004). A diffusion model account of the lexical decision task.Psychological Review,111, 159–182.
Ratcliff, R., &Murdock, B. B. (1976). Retrieval processes in recognition memory.Psychological Review,86, 190–214.
Ratcliff, R., Perea, M., Colangelo, A., &Buchanan, L. (2004). A diffusion model account of normal and impaired readers.Brain & Cognition,55, 374–382.
Rumelhart, D. E., &McClelland, J. L. (1982). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 2. The contextual enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of the model.Psychological Review,89, 60–94.
Stanners, R. F., Jastrzembski, J. E., &Westbrook, A. (1975). Frequency and visual quality in a word-nonword classification task.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,14, 259–264.
Stone, G. O., &Van Orden, G. C. (1994). Building a resonance framework for word recognition using design and system principles.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,20, 1248–1268.
Westall, R., Perkey, M. N., &Chute, D. L. (1986). Accurate millisecond timing on the Apple Macintosh using Drexler’s millitimer.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,18, 307–311.
Whitney, C. (2001). How the brain encodes the order of letters in a printed word: The SERIOL model and selective literature review.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8, 221–243.
Woodworth, R. S. (1938).Experimental psychology. New York: Holt.
Ziegler, J. C., Jacobs, A. M., &Klüppel, D. (2001). Pseudohomophone effects in lexical decision: Still a challenge for current word recognition models.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,27, 547–559.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by a grant from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology (BSO2002-03286) to M.P.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Perea, M., Rosa, E. & Gómez, C. The frequency effect for pseudowords in the lexical decision task. Perception & Psychophysics 67, 301–314 (2005). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206493
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206493