Beyond single syllables: Large-scale modeling of reading aloud with the Connectionist Dual Process (CDP++) model
Abstract
Most words in English have more than one syllable, yet the most influential computational models of reading aloud are restricted to processing monosyllabic words. Here, we present CDP++, a new version of the Connectionist Dual Process model (Perry, Ziegler, & Zorzi, 2007). CDP++ is able to simulate the reading aloud of mono- and disyllabic words and nonwords, and learns to assign stress in exactly the same way as it learns to associate graphemes with phonemes. CDP++ is able to simulate the monosyllabic benchmark effects its predecessor could, and therefore shows full backwards compatibility. CDP++ also accounts for a number of novel effects specific to disyllabic words, including the effects of stress regularity and syllable number. In terms of database performance, CDP++ accounts for over 49% of the reaction time variance on items selected from the English Lexicon Project, a very large database of several thousand of words. With its lexicon of over 32,000 words, CDP++ is therefore a notable example of the successful scaling-up of a connectionist model to a size that more realistically approximates the human lexical system.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Phonological constraints could operate at the level of individual phonemes and phonological syllables, as in CDP++.
“These phonological constraints could operate at the level of individual phonemes and phonological syllables, as in CDP++ (Perry et al., 2010).”
From A Dual-Route Approach to Orthographic Processing (2011) · cites this paper as Perry et al., 2010
Cites
Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research
Rayner, K. (1998) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372 · Cited by 7,979 · see citing works
WIDROW, B., & HOFF, M. E. (1960) · doi:10.21236/ad0241531 · Cited by 4,009 · see citing works
Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model.
Grainger, J., & Jacobs, A. M. (1996) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.103.3.518 · Cited by 947 · see citing works
The special role of rimes in the description, use, and acquisition of English orthography.
Treiman, R., Mullennix, J., Bijeljac-Babic, R., & Richmond-Welty, E. D. (1995) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.124.2.107 · Cited by 556 · see citing works
Frequency and neighborhood effects on lexical access: Activation or search?
Andrews, S. (1989) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.15.5.802 · Cited by 468 · see citing works
Effects of frequency on visual word recognition tasks: Where are they?
Monsell, S., Doyle, M. C., & Haggard, P. N. (1989) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.118.1.43 · Cited by 432 · see citing works
Differential effects of number of letters on word and nonword naming latency
Weekes, B. S. (1997) · The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A · doi:10.1080/027249897392170 · Cited by 354 · see citing works
Models of visual word recognition: Sampling the state of the art.
Jacobs, A. M., & Grainger, J. (1994) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.20.6.1311 · Cited by 319 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Backwards compatibility is a key element in incremental nested modeling (Jacobs & Grainger, 1994).”
Conspiracy effects in word pronunciation
Taraban, R., & McClelland, J. L. (1987) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/0749-596x(87)90105-7 · Cited by 301 · see citing works
Ziegler, J. C., Besson, M., Jacobs, A. M., Nazir, T. A., & Carr, T. H. (1997) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.1997.9.6.758 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert
Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100618772271 · Cited by 1,297 · see citing works
A Dual-Route Approach to Orthographic Processing
Grainger, J., & Ziegler, J. C. (2011) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00054 · Cited by 459 · see citing works
Self-citationZiegler, J. C., Perry, C., & Zorzi, M. (2014) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0397 · Cited by 204 · see citing works
Self-citationGetting to the bottom of orthographic depth.
Schmalz, X., Marinus, E., Coltheart, M., & Castles, A. (2015) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0835-2 · Cited by 195 · see citing works
- Authors
- Perry, C., Ziegler, J. C., & Zorzi, M.
- Venue
- Cognitive Psychology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-09
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 106-151
- ISSN
- 0010-0285
- Cited by
- 294
- References
- 10
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review