The Science of Reading. Группа авторов
Читать онлайн книгу.
Mr. Chips: An ideal‐observer model of reading. Psychological Review, 104, 524–553. doi: 10.1037/0033‐295x.104.3.524.
56 Legge, G. E., Pelli, D. G., Rubin, G. S., & Schleske, M. M. (1985). Psychophysics of reading – I. Normal vision. Vision research, 25, 239–252. doi: 10.1016/0042‐6989(85)90117‐8.
57 Lupker, S. J., Perea, M., & Davis, C. J. (2008). Transposed‐letter effects: Consonants, vowels and letter frequency. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 93–116.doi: 10.1080/01690960701579714
58 Mayall, K., Humphreys, G. W., & Olson, A. (1997). Disruption to word or letter processing? The origins of case‐mixing effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 1275–1286. doi: 10.1037//0278‐7393.23.5.1275.
59 McClelland, J. & Rumelhart, D. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part I. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375–407. doi: 10.1037/0033‐295X.88.5.375.
60 Meade, G., Grainger, J., Midgley, K. J., Emmorey, K., & Holcomb, P. J. (2018). From sublexical facilitation to lexical competition: ERP effects of masked neighbor priming. Brain Research, 1685, 29–41. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2018.01.029.
61 Mirault, J. & Grainger, J. (2020). On the time it takes to judge grammaticality. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73, 1460–1465. doi: 10.1177/1747021820913296.
62 Mirault, M., Snell, J., & Grainger, J. (2018). You that read wrong again! A transposed‐word effect in grammaticality judgments. Psychological Science, 29, 1922–1929. doi: 10.1177/0956797618806296.
63 Montani, V., Facoetti, A., & Zorzi, M. (2015). The effect of decreased interletter spacing on orthographic processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 824–832. doi: 10.3758/s13423‐014‐0728‐9.
64 Mueller, S. T., & Weidemann, C. T. (2012). Alphabetic letter identification: Effects of perceivability, similarity, and bias. Acta Psychologica, 139, 19–37. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.09.014.
65 Nazir, T. A. (2000). Traces of print along the visual pathway. In Reading as a perceptual process, pp. 3–22. doi: 10.1016/B978‐008043642‐5/50003‐6.
66 O’Regan, J. K., & Jacobs, A. M. (1992). Optimal viewing position effect in word recognition: A challenge to current theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 18, 185–197.doi: 10.1037/0096‐1523.18.1.185.
67 O’Regan, J.K., Lévy‐Schoen, A., Pynte, J., & Brugaillère, (1984). Convenient fixation location within isolated words of different length and structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Human Perception & Performance, 10, 250–257. doi: 10.1037//0096‐1523.10.2.250.
68 Pelli, D. G., Burns, C. W., Farell, B., & Moore‐Page, D. C. (2006). Feature detection and letter identification. Vision Research, 46, 4646–4674. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2006.04.023.
69 Pelli, D.G. & Tillman, K.A. (2008) The uncrowded window of object recognition. Nature Neuroscience, 1129–1135. doi: 10.1038/nn.2187.
70 Perea, M., Duñabeitia, J. A., & Carreiras, M. (2008). TL priming effects for close versus distant transpositions. Experimental Psychology, 55, 397–406. doi: 10.1027/1618‐3169.55.6.384.
71 Perea, M., & Gomez, P. (2012). Subtle increases in interletter spacing facilitate the encoding of words during normal reading. PLoS One, 7(10), e47568. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0047568.
72 Perea, M., & Lupker, S. J. (2003). Does jugde activate COURT? Transposed‐letter similarity effects in masked associative priming. Memory and Cognition, 31(6), 829–841. doi: 10.3758/bf03196438.
73 Perea, M., & Lupker, S. J. (2004). Can caniso activate casino? Transposed‐letter similarity effects with nonadjacent letter positions. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 231–246. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.005.
74 Perea, M., & Rosa, E. (2002). Does “whole‐word shape” play a role in visual word recognition? Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 785–794. doi: 10.3758/bf03194745.
75 Perea, M., Jiménez, M., & Gómez, P. (2014). A challenging dissociation in masked identity priming with the lexical decision task. Acta Psychologica, 148, 130–135. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.01.014.
76 Perea, M., Vergara‐Martínez, M., & Gomez, P. (2015). Resolving the locus of cAsE aLtErNaTiOn effects in visual word recognition: Evidence from masked priming. Cognition, 142, 39–43. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.007.
77 Peressotti, F. & Grainger, J. (1999). The role of letter identity and letter position in orthographic priming. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 691–706. doi: 10.3758/bf03205539.
78 Perry, C., Ziegler, J. C., & Zorzi, M. (2007). Nested incremental modeling in the development of computational theories: the CDP+ model of reading aloud. Psychological Review, 114, 273. doi: 10.1037/0033‐295X.114.2.273.
79 Pollatsek, A., Perea, M., & Binder, K. S. (1999). The effects of “neighborhood size” in reading and lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1142. doi: 10.1037/0096‐1523.25.4.1142.
80 Rayner, K. (1979). Eye guidance in reading: Fixation locations within words. Perception, 8, 21–30. doi: 10.1068/p080021.
81 Riesenhuber, M., & Poggio, T. (1999). Hierarchical models of object recognition in cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 1019–1025. doi: 10.1038/14819.
82 Schoonbaert, S. & Grainger, J. (2004). Letter position coding in printed word perception: Effects of repeated and transposed letters. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19, 333–367. doi: 10.1080/01690960344000198.
83 Segui, J. & Grainger, J. (1990). Priming word recognition with orthographic neighbors: Effects of relative prime‐target frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 65–76. doi: 10.1037/0096‐1523.16.1.65.
84 Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523. doi: 10.1037/0033‐295x.96.4.523.
85 Selfridge, O. G., & Neisser, U. (1960). Pattern recognition by machine. Scientific American, 203, 60–69. doi: 10.1038/SCIENTIFICAMERICAN0860‐60.
86 Snell, J., Declerck, M. & Grainger, J. (2018). Parallel semantic processing in reading revisited: Effects of translation equivalents in bilingual readers. Language, Cognition & Neuroscience, 33, 563–574. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2017.1392583.
87 Snell, J., & Grainger, J. (2017). The sentence superiority effect revisited. Cognition, 168, 217–221. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.07.003.
88 Snell, J., & Grainger, J. (2019). Readers are parallel processors. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23, 537–546. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2019.04.006.
89 Snell, J., Meeter, M., & Grainger, J. (2017). Evidence for simultaneous syntactic processing of multiple words during reading. PLoS ONE, 12, e0173720. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173720.
90 Snell, J., van Leipsig, S., Grainger, J. & Meeter, M. (2018). OB1‐reader: A model of word recognition and eye movements in text reading. Psychological Review, 125, 969–984. doi: 10.1037/rev0000119.
91 Stevens, M. & Grainger, J. (2003). Letter visibility and the viewing position effect in visual word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 133–151. doi: 10.3758/bf03194790.
92 Tydgat, I. & Grainger, J. (2009). Serial position effects in the identification of letters, digits, and symbols. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 480–498. doi: 10.1037/a0013027.
93 van Assche, E. & Grainger, J. (2006). A study of relative‐position priming with superset primes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 32, 399–415. doi: 10.1037/0278‐7393.32.2.399.
94 van Heuven, W., Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J., & Schriefers, H. (2001). Shared neighborhood effects in masked orthographic priming. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 96–101. doi: 10.3758/bf03196144.
95 Vergara‐Martínez,