word_recognition
Document Sample


Word Recognition
Rauno Parrila
University of Tromsø
raunop@psyk.uit.no
Contents
1. Definitions
2. Letter recognition
3. Sublexical units in word recognition
4. Lexical factors
5. Semantic factors
6. Language level factors
Why word recognition?
Word recognition literature cuts across
several basic research areas in cognitive
psychology
verbal learning and memory
memory access (via phonemes, morphemes,
graphemes, semantics etc.)
attention (automatic vs. controlled
processing)
pattern recognition (features vs. templates)
Definitions
Phone
elementary speech sound or sound unit
(acoustic unit)
Phoneme
a group of speech sounds spelled with the same
or equivalent letter and commonly regarded as
the same sound. They may vary somewhat (be
different phones) but do not differentiate
between meanings.
Allophones
allphones not distinguished in a language as
separate phonemes
Definitions cont.
Homophones
words that sound the same but are spelled
differently
Pseudohomophone
nonword that sounds like a real word when
pronounced
Onset
initial consonant or consonant cluster in a
syllable
Rime
everything that follows in a syllable after onset
Definitions cont.
Phonetics
study of raw sounds (phones)
Phonology
study of sounds within a language (phonemes)
Grapheme
a letter or combination of letters that represent a
phoneme (basic unit of written language)
Morpheme
unit of structure that reflects meaning
Definitions cont.
Morphology
study of words and word formation
Semantics
study of meaning
Pragmatics
study of language use
Syntax
study of word order
Word Recognition: The Task
1. Recognize input stimuli as letters (pattern
matching)
2. Recognize combination of letters as a word
(visually or via phononological recoding)
3. Retrieve the meaning from lexicon (lexical
access)
4. Retrieve phonological representation (sound
lexicon)
5. Assemble motor program for pronunciation
6. Execute pronunciation program
WRITTEN WORD
Naming
VISUAL
ANALYSIS
SYSTEM
VISUAL
INPUT
LEXICON
SEMANTIC
SYSTEM
SPEECH GRAPHEME-
OUTPUT PHONEME
LEXICON CONVERSION
PHONEME
LEVEL
SPEECH
Lexical Decision
WRITTEN WORD
VISUAL
ANALYSIS
SYSTEM
VISUAL GRAPHEME-
INPUT PHONEME
LEXICON CONVERSION
SEMANTIC
SYSTEM
(LEXICON)
Visual Analysis System:
Letter Recognition
How do we recognize a group of lines and
curves as letters?
Two common explanations: Template
matching and feature detection
Reisberg, , Chapter 2
Template matching
Stored representation in brain for every
letter (every version of that letter)
Costly: think of all the possible fonts,
handwriting styles etc.
Normalization before matching
Perhaps enough space for letters but for all
visual stimuli? Two different systems for
letters and other visual stimuli?
Feature detection
analysis-by-synthesis
1. Letter broken down to its constituent parts
2. List of parts compared to patterns in memory
3. Best matching pattern chosen
Feature demons Cognitive demons
decode specific “shout” when they
features receive certain
combinations of features
Image Demon Decision demon
receives sensory “listens” for the
input and sends loudest shout in
signal further pandemonium to
identify input
A
WRITTEN WORD
VISUAL
ANALYSIS
SYSTEM
VISUAL GRAPHEME-
INPUT PHONEME
LEXICON CONVERSION
SEMANTIC
SYSTEM
(LEXICON)
Word recognition: Sounds
Grapheme-phoneme correspondence
print to sound conversion by rules or analogies
Spelling-sound regularity effect
words with consistent spelling-sound relations are
read aloud faster (by skilled readers) than irregular
words
no difference in lexical decision?
Pseudohomophone effect
Lexical decision speed slower with nonwords that
sound like real words than with real words or with
nonwords that do not sound like real words
Homophone categorization
Word recognition: Groups of letters
word superiority effect with words and
orthographically regular (pronouncable)
nonwords, but not with unpronouncable
nonwords (Eysenck & Keane, p. 292)
non-word legality effect (orthographic
regularity effect)
response time for nonwords following spelling
patterns of real words longer than to nonwords that
are not word-like (non-word legality effect)
perhaps orthographic processing effect in general:
words containing frequent letter bigrams or trigrams
recognized faster than other words
positional frequency effect
HIGHER LEVEL INPUT
McClelland & Rumelhart, 1981
WORD LEVEL
LETTER LEVEL PHONEME LEVEL
FEATURE LEVEL ACOUSTIC
FEATURE LEVEL
VISUAL INPUT ACOUSTIC INPUT
BAD CAB
B A D C E
Do other sublexical units help in
recognizing printed words?
Sublexical units bigger than phonemes and
graphemes?
onsets and rimes
onset: initial consonant or consonant cluster in a
word or syllable
rime: following vowel and consonants
if words broken at onset-rime boundary, resulting
letter clusters more easily recognized as belonging
together than if broken at other points
example: FL OST ANK TR
vs. FLA ST NK TRO
no role in visual word recognition?
syllables:
morphemes:
root morpheme effect in lexical decision
morphemic priming effect
JUMP and JUMPED both prime JUMP
WRITTEN WORD
VISUAL
ANALYSIS
SYSTEM
VISUAL GRAPHEME-
INPUT PHONEME
LEXICON CONVERSION
SEMANTIC
SYSTEM
(LEXICON)
Lexical Level Variables
Word frequency effect
naming latency for high-frequency words shorter
than for low-frequency words
lexical decision time faster for high-frequency words
than for low-frequency words
shorter fixation durations for high-frequency words
than for low-frequency words when reading a
passage
Word familiarity effect
familiarity ratings usually based on subjective ratings
(spoken word frequency) and frequency ratings to
analysis of texts (written word frequency)
independent familiarity effects in naming and lexical
decision tasks (after frequency controlled)
Lexical status effect
response time to words faster than to nonwords in
lexical decision tasks
words named faster than nonwords (even pseudo-
homophones)
Why lexical access faster for high
frequency and familiar words?
activation explanation
high-frequency and familiar words will have
higher resting level activations due to increased
experience with them
ordered search (list models)
lexiconsearched serially with high-frequency
and familiar words being searched before low-
frequency and unfamiliar words
LION
Orthographic Phonological Semantic
access file access file access file
LION /l/i/o/n/
lion
Semantic variables
Neighbourhood effect (word similarity
effect)
nonwords with large ‘neighbourhood’ take longer to
reject than nonwords with small neighbourhoods
low frequency words with large ‘neighbourhood’ are
recognized faster than low frequency words with
small neighbourhoods
Ambiguity (meaningfulness) effect
more meanings, faster recognition
Repetition priming
familiar word encountered for the second or third
time in a task is named and recognized faster than
when it was encountered the first time
Semantic (context) priming
words appearing at the end of constraining sentence
are recognized faster than otherwise
eye fixations shorter (or skipped) when words
highly compatible with context
irrelevant context makes target words harder to
recognize
words appearing in isolation recognized and named
faster if preceeded by a semantic associate
difficult to explain for the ordered search
models
Summary
Two routes to word recognition (lexicon):
1. Direct visual access
Lexical route, direct route, recognition by sight
(sight-words), visual route
Assumption is that some number of (common) words
are recognized as visual units without access to
sound based information
2. Grapheme-phoneme conversion
print-to-sound conversion, spelling to sound
conversion, speech recoding, phonological recoding,
phonological coding, deep phonological coding,
phonetic recoding
lexicon accessed through speech based code
Which route is chosen?
Differences between words (stimuli)
Differences between individuals
Differences between languages: Orthographic
depth of the language
1. shallow orthography: the phonemes of the
spoken word are represented by the graphemes in
a direct and unequivocal manner (isomorphism)
2. deep orthography: spelling to sound relations
(more) opaque (e.g., same letter may represent
different sounds in different contexts, or different
letters may represent the same sound in different
contexts)
Frost, Katz, & Bentin (1987)
Compared visual word recognition in Serbo-Croatian
(shallow orthography), Hebrew (deep orthography),
and English (medium)
found that word frequency effect (high vs. low) and
lexical status effect (words vs. nonwords) on naming
speed depended on language; largest on Hebrew,
smallest on Serbo-Croatian
performance in lexical decision and naming tasks
almost identical in Hebrew and clearly different for
Serbo-Croatian
semantic priming effected naming speed in Hebrew
and English but not in Serbo-Croatian
WRITTEN WORD
Serbo-Croatian
(English) VISUAL
ANALYSIS
SYSTEM
VISUAL
INPUT
LEXICON
SEMANTIC
SYSTEM
SPEECH GRAPHEME-
OUTPUT PHONEME
LEXICON CONVERSION
PHONEME
LEVEL
SPEECH
(NAMING)
WRITTEN WORD
Hebrew
(English) VISUAL
ANALYSIS
SYSTEM
VISUAL
INPUT
LEXICON
SEMANTIC
SYSTEM
SPEECH GRAPHEME-
OUTPUT PHONEME
LEXICON CONVERSION
PHONEME
LEVEL
SPEECH
(NAMING)
Get documents about "