CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 73Reading and Literacy DevelopmentNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismMemory Processes and Influences

Neighborhood effects in visual word recognition: Facilitatory or inhibitory?

Open access
Snodgrass, Joan Gay, Mintzer, Miriam·1993·Memory & Cognition
DOI 10.3758/bf03202737
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In five experiments, in which subjects were to identify a target word as it was gradually clarified, we manipulated the target's frequency of occurrence in the language and its neighborhood size--the number of words that can be constructed from a target word by changing one letter, while preserving letter position. In Experiments 1-4, visual identification performance to screen-fragmented words was measured. In Experiments 1 and 2, we used the ascending method of limits, whereas Experiments 3 and 4 presented a fixed-level fragment. In Experiment 1, there was no relation between overall accuracy and neighborhood size for words between three and six letters in length. However, more errors of commission (guesses) were made for high-neighborhood words and more errors of omission (blanks) were made for low-neighborhood words. Letter errors within guesses occurred at serial positions having many neighbors, and these positions were also likely to contain consonants rather than vowels. In Experiment 2, a small facilitatory effect of neighborhood size on both high- and low-frequency words was found. In contrast, in Experiments 3 and 4, using the same set of words, inhibitory effects of neighborhood size, but only for low-frequency words, were found. Experiment 5, using a speeded identification task, showed results parallel to those of Experiments 3 and 4. We suggest that whether neighborhood effects are facilitatory or inhibitory depends on whether feedback allows subjects to disconfirm initial hypotheses that the target is a high-frequency neighbor.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/bf03202737

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Snodgrass and Minzer (1993) found that successive guessing yielded null effects or weak facilitatory effects of neighborhood size, but when subjects made a single identification response, accuracy was lower for low-frequency words from large neighborhoods.

    “The successive guessing procedure yielded null effects or weak facilita-tory effects of neighborhood size, but when subjects were required to make a single identification response, accuracy was lower for low-frequency words from large neighborhoods.”

    From The effect of orthographic similarity on lexical retrieval: Resolving neighborhood conflicts (1997) · cites this paper as Snodgrass & Minzer, 1993

  • Perceptual identification tasks provide useful insights into the similarity relationships that influence perceptual and response processes, but the perceptual ambiguity of the stimuli encourages application of strategic guessing processes that may curtail or obscure the effects.

    “Thus, perceptual identification tasks provide useful insights into the similarity relationships that influence perceptual and response processes (Snodgrass & Minzer, 1993), but the perceptual ambiguity ofthe stimuli encourages application ofstrategic guessing processes that may curtail or obscure the”

    From The effect of orthographic similarity on lexical retrieval: Resolving neighborhood conflicts (1997) · cites this paper as Snodgrass & Minzer, 1993

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [14]14. GUMBEL, E. J. (1958). Statistics ofextremes. New York: Columbia Uni- versity Press.
  2. [16]16. JACOBY, L. L., '" DALLAS, M. (1981). On the relationship between auto- biographical memory and perceptualleaming. Journal ofExperimental Psychology: General, 110, 306-340.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Snodgrass, J. G., & Mintzer, M.
Affiliations
New York University (US)
Corresponding author
Snodgrass, Joan Gay
Venue
Memory & Cognition
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
1993-03
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
247-266
ISSN
  • 0090-502X (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5946
DOI
10.3758/bf03202737
OpenAlex
W2048557587
Cited by
73
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
5.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Memory & Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
neighborhood effects, visual word recognition, word frequency, neighborhood size, commission errors, omission errors, feedback, hypothesis testing
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Discrimination Learning, Female, Humans, Male, Phonetics, Problem Solving, Mental Recall, Semantics, Verbal Learning

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