Background

1. Results Mean RTs across overlap positions • Main effect of position (Beginning vs. Ending),F (1,47) = 6.33, p = .02. • Ending overlap targets are recognized faster than beginning overlap targets, with unrelated pairs falling in the middle • Example: Faster RTs to rallenge-syringe, kressure-measure, and rotograph- paragraph than to surlive-syringe, measelsh-measure, and pararite-paragraph, respectively. Mean RTs across all prime conditions • No interaction between position and shared information—Ending overlap speeds recognition, regardless of type of information (sound, spelling, both). • Planned comparisons revealed some significant differences between prime-target relationships • Beginning spelling pairs produced inhibition relative to Unrelated pairs, t (47) = 2.19, p =.028. • Ending spelling pairs were named faster than Beginning Spelling pairs, t (47) = 2.27, p =.034. • Ending Both pairs produced facilitation relative to Unrelated pairs,t (47) = 2.07, p =.044. What can nonwords tell us about the role of sound and spelling in spoken word recognition?Kelsey M. Stoos, Lindsay E. Johnson & Christine P. Malone Minnesota State University Moorhead • Background • Previous priming research has found both spelling and sound influence spoken word recognition. • But much of the previous research has manipulated only spelling or sound and left the other factor free to vary. • Some basic findings from these priming studies follow: •  Overlapping ending sound information speeds recognition • Example: dread recognized faster when preceded by bed than by fence •  Overlapping beginning sound information slows recognition • Example: buckle recognized slower when preceded by bucket than by acid •  One explanation is that initial information is more salient and creates competition at the word level, whereas ending information provides some facilitation at the letter level •  Overlapping ending spelling information also speeds recognition • Example:tie recognized faster when preceded by pie than by bye • Both sound and spelling information need consideration in the spoken recognition process but we must systematically study sound and spelling information to understand their individual and combined contributions. • Our previous research with words as primes showed that both spelling and sound information are automatically activated in the spoken recognition process. Also, matching spelling information was shown to facilitate recognition, regardless of whether it occurred at the beginning or ending of the items. • Therefore, our current research question is:At which level do these priming effects take place– word level or letter level? If letter level, then should find differences in target reaction times (RTs) with nonword primes. • Method • Participants48 MSUM undergraduate students • ProcedurePresentation: Prime  100 ms silence  Target • Speeded naming task: Participants listened to both the nonword prime and the target word and spoke the word as soon as recognized. • Naming RTs were measured from onset of target to onset of participant’s vocal response. Prime-Target Pairs Beginning-sound: surlive-syringe Ending-sound: rallenge-syringe Beginning-spelling: measelsh-measure Ending-spelling:kressure-measureBeginning-both: pararite-paragraph Ending-both: rotograph-paragraph Unrelated:mereal-paragraph • Conclusions • Slowed response times for initial information—since primes were nonwords, some competition must be taking place at the level of the letter, not only at the word level. • Spelling seems to be automatically activated during spoken word recognition, as evidenced by differential RTs for Ending Spelling pairs relative to Unrelated and Beginning Spelling pairs. • Perhaps overall sound and spelling match for the letter level influences spoken word recognition, as Both sound and spelling at the end of the items speeded responding relative to unrelated pairs.