CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3,178

DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud.

Coltheart, Max, Rastle, Kathleen, Perry, Conrad, Langdon, Robyn, Ziegler, Johannes·2001·Psychological Review
DOI 10.1037/0033-295x.108.1.204
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article describes the Dual Route Cascaded (DRC) model, a computational model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. The DRC is a computational realization of the dual-route theory of reading, and is the only computational model of reading that can perform the 2 tasks most commonly used to study reading: lexical decision and reading aloud. For both tasks, the authors show that a wide variety of variables that influence human latencies influence the DRC model's latencies in exactly the same way. The DRC model simulates a number of such effects that other computational models of reading do not, but there appear to be no effects that any other current computational model of reading can simulate but that the DRC model cannot. The authors conclude that the DRC model is the most successful of the existing computational models of reading.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-295x.108.1.204

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Like the BIAM, the multiple-route model resembles dual-route models of reading aloud and especially the CDP+ model.

    “Like the BIAM, our multiple-route model of word recognition has many similarities with dual-route models of reading aloud (Coltheart et al., 2001) and particularly the CDP+ model (Perry et al., 2007, 2010).”

    From A Dual-Route Approach to Orthographic Processing (2011) · cites this paper as Coltheart et al., 2001

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J.
Venue
Psychological Review
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2001
Volume
108
Issue
1
Pages
204-256
ISSN
  • 1939-1471
  • 0033-295X
DOI
10.1037/0033-295x.108.1.204
Cited by
3,178
References
13
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