The transposed-word effect provides no unequivocal evidence for parallel processing
-
Published:2023-05-15
Issue:8
Volume:85
Page:2538-2546
-
ISSN:1943-3921
-
Container-title:Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Atten Percept Psychophys
Author:
Milledge Sara V., Bhatia Neya, Mensah-Mcleod Loren, Raghvani Pallvi, A. McGowan Victoria, Elsherif Mahmoud M., Cutter Michael G., Wang Jingxin, Liu Zhiwei, Paterson Kevin B.ORCID
Abstract
AbstractStudies using a grammaticality decision task have revealed surprising flexibility in the processing of word order during sentence reading in both alphabetic and non-alphabetic scripts. Participants in these studies typically exhibit a transposed-word effect, in which they make more errors and slower correct responses for stimuli that contain a word transposition and are derived from grammatical as compared to ungrammatical base sentences. Some researchers have used this finding to argue that words are encoded in parallel during reading, such that multiple words can be processed simultaneously and might be recognised out of order. This contrasts with an alternative account of the reading process, which argues that words must be encoded serially, one at a time. We examined, in English, whether the transposed-word effect provides evidence for a parallel-processing account, employing the same grammaticality decision task used in previous research and display procedures that either allowed for parallel word encoding or permitted only the serial encoding of words. Our results replicate and extend recent findings by showing that relative word order can be processed flexibly even when parallel processing is not possible (i.e., within displays requiring serial word encoding). Accordingly, while the present findings provide further evidence for flexibility in the processing of relative word order during reading, they add to converging evidence that the transposed-word effect does not provide unequivocal evidence for a parallel-processing account of reading. We consider how the present findings may be accounted for by both serial and parallel accounts of word recognition in reading.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Linguistics and Language,Sensory Systems,Language and Linguistics,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
Reference42 articles.
1. Anwyl-Irvine, A. L., Massonié, J., Flitton, A., Kirkham, N., & Evershed, J. K. (2020). Gorilla in our midst: An online behavioural experiment builder. Behavior Research Methods, 52, 388–407. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01237-x 2. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 3. Bridges, D., Pitiot, A., MacAskill, M. R., & Peirce, J. W. (2020). The timing mega-study: Comparing a range of experiment generators, both lab-based and online. PeerJ, 8, e9414. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9414 4. Brysbaert, M., & Stevens, M. (2018). Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A tutorial. Journal of Cognition, 1(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.10 5. Cutter, M. G., Drieghe, D., & Liversedge, S. P. (2015). How is information integrated across fixations in reading? In A. Pollatsek & R. Treiman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Reading (pp. 245–260). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199324576.001.0001
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|