The effect of orthographic similarity on lexical retrieval: Resolving neighborhood conflicts

May combine two claims.

Three of the four studies manipulating neighbor frequency in word naming have yielded facilitatory effects, including Grainger's (1990) investigation of French stimuli and subjects.

“Three of the four studies manipulating neighbor frequency have also yielded facilitatory effects, including Grainger's (1990) investigation of French stimuli and subjects.”

• cites Grainger, 1990 sourceDisputed

  The General Discussion reports neighborhood interference, not facilitation. The Experiment 1 Method confirms that the stimuli were French words, but the paper tested lexical decision and masked identification, not word naming. Page numbers are not supplied for these passages in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)

  Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

May combine two claims.

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.”

• cites Snodgrass & Minzer, 1993 sourceSupported

May combine two claims.

In Grainger et al. (1989) eye-movement data, words with a single higher frequency neighbor were classified more slowly than words with either no neighbors or low-frequency neighbors, but this inhibitory effect was not evident for stimuli with more than one high-frequency neighbor.

“Words with a single higher frequency neighbor were classified more slowly than were words with either no neighbors or with low-frequency neighbors.However, this inhibitory effect was not evident for stimuli with more than one high-frequency neighbor.”

• cites Grainger et al., 1989 sourcePartly supported

  Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

May combine two claims.

Grainger et al. (1992) found significantly slower average performance for French words with a higher frequency neighbor than those with no such neighbor, but the effect was only evident for words with neighbors at the fourth position, not second position.

“Although they found significantly slower average performance for words with a higher frequency neighbor than those with no such neighbor, the effect was only evident for word with neighbors at the fourth position, and not for words with second position neighbors.”

• cites Grainger et al., 1992 sourceSupported

May combine two claims.

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”

• cites Snodgrass & Minzer, 1993 sourceSupported

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Treiman et al.s (1990; Treiman et al., 1995) investigations suggest that sensitivity to body units is evident very early in reading development-at least by the end of first grade.

“Treiman et al.s (1990;Treiman et al., 1995) investigations of this issue suggest that sensitivity to body units is evident very early in reading development-at least by the end of first grade.”

• cites Treiman et al., 1990 sourceSupported
• cites Treiman et al., 1995 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

Any such representational level may be superfluous in a system that parses words into overlapping multiletter units such as Wickelgraphs or syllabic segments such as onsets, vowels, and codas.

“Moreover, any such representational level may be superfluous in a system that parses words into overlapping multiletter units such as”

• cites Wickelgren, 1969 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Plaut et al., 1996 sourcePartly supported

  The Implemented Model (p. 6) describes representations built from overlapping letter triples, and Condensing Spelling-Sound Regularities (pp. 11–13) describes representations organized around vowel and consonant clusters and multiletter graphemes. These passages support the examples of how words can be represented, but they do not say that the unspecified representational level is superfluous. (LLM, conf=0.75)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Treiman et al. acknowledge that their evidence does not conclusively demonstrate that body units derive their importance from rime units in spoken words.

“But they acknowledge that their evidence does not conclusively demonstrate that body units”

• cites Treiman et al., 1990 sourceSupported

May combine two claims.

Neighborhood size is systematically related to word length: 4-letter words have about three times as many neighbors as 5-letter words, and 6-letter words have an average of only one neighbor.

“As expected, N is systematically related to word length: 4-letter words have 3 times as many neighbors as do 5-letter words, and 6-letter words have an average of only one neighbor.”

May combine two claims.

In general, low-frequency words have more low-frequency neighbors and fewer higher frequency neighbors than do high-frequency words.

“In general, then, low-frequency words have more low-frequency neighbors and fewer higher frequency neighbors than do high-frequency words.”

May combine two claims.

Most 4-letter words have a higher frequency neighbor, but this is true for no more than half of 5- and 6-letter words.

“while most 4-letter words have a higher frequency neighbor, this is true for no more than half of5-and 6-letter words.”

May combine two claims.

Both the number and frequency of word neighbors are correlated with the spread of neighbors across letter positions.

“Table 2 also shows that both the number and frequency ofword neighbors are correlated with the spread of neighbors across letter positions.”

May combine two claims.

Within large samples of items, none of the measures of neighborhood structure are strongly correlated with word frequency, suggesting that high- and low-frequency words have similar neighbor distributions.

“Within these large samples of items, none of the measures ofneighborhood structure are strongly correlated with word frequency, suggesting that high-and low-frequency words have similar neighbor distributions.”

May combine two claims.

Average word frequency and the frequency of the highest frequency neighbor are considerably higher for 4-letter words than for longer words.

“The average word frequency and the frequency ofthe highest frequency neighbor are considerably higher for 4-letter words”

May combine two claims.

Apart from one experiment by Johnson and Pugh (1994, Experiment 1), the effects of manipulations of neighborhood size are all either facilitatory or null, and two of the three null effects occurred in languages other than English.

“Apart from one experiment by Johnson and Pugh (1994, Experiment 1), the effects of manipulations of neighborhood size are all either facilitatory or null, and two of the three null effects occurred in languages other than English.”

• cites Johnson and Pugh, 1994, Experiment 1 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The most common outcome for neighbor frequency is an inhibitory effect of higher frequency neighbors (54%), but there are also eight null results and five studies reporting a facilitatory effect.

“The most common outcome is an inhibitory effect of higher frequency neighbors (54%), but there are also eight null results and five studies reporting a facilitatory effect.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Table 4 summarizes 43 observations of the effects of N and 28 that have investigated the effects of neighbor frequency.

“Table 4 summarizes 43 observations of the effects ofN on one of the tasks under consideration and 28 that have investigated the effects of neighbor frequency.”

May combine two claims.

There are inhibitory effects of higher frequency neighbors in French and Spanish, but they rarely occur in English.

“There are inhibitory effects of higher frequency neighbors in French and Spanish, but they rarely occur in English.”

May combine two claims.

In the sample of 1,895 words described in Table 1, there were an average of 3.35 neighbors at the first position compared with 0.88, 1.43, and 1.57 for positions 2, 3, and 4, respectively.

“In the sample of 1,895 words described in Table 1, there were an average of 3.35 neighbors at the first position compared with 0.88, 1.43, and 1.57 for positions 2, 3, and 4, respectively.”

• cites Table 1Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

A similar dominance by first-position neighbors is evident for 5- and 6-letter words: for 5-letter words, the average number of first-position neighbors is 0.92 and an average of 0.27 for other positions; the corresponding statistics for 6-letter words are 0.52 and 0.12.

“A similar dominance by first-position neighbors is evident for 5-and 6-letter words: for 5-letter words, the average number of first-position neighbors is 0.92 and an average of 0.27 for other positions; the corresponding statistics for 6-letter words are 0.52 and 0.12.”

May combine two claims.

There is a strong relationship between N and word length, because words with more than 4 letters have very few neighbors.

“As demonstrated in Table 1, there is a strong relationship between N and word length, because words with more than 4 letters have very few neighbors.”

• cites Table 1Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

In single-word paradigms, the conclusion that performance is sensitive to the number or frequency of neighbors is an inference that rests on the assumption that the stimulus sets selected to differ on a particular neighborhood metric do not differ systematically on any other dimension relevant to word identification.

“In such paradigms, the conclusion that performance is sensitive to the number or frequency ofneighbors is an inference that rests on the assumption that the stimulus sets selected to differ on a particular neighborhood metric do not differ systematically on any other dimension relevant to word identification.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The stimulus sets selected to differ on a particular neighborhood metric do not differ systematically on any other dimension relevant to word identification.

May combine two claims.

Johnson and Pugh found inhibitory effects of N when words had to be discriminated from legal pronounceable nonwords, but facilitatory effects when illegal nonwords were used.

“They found inhibitory effects of N when words had to be discriminated from legal pronounceable nonwords, but facilitatory effects when illegal nonwords were used instead.”

• cites Johnson and Pugh, 1994 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

When highly wordlike nonwords were used, Grainger and Jacobs found inhibitory effects of neighbor frequency and no effect of N; with less wordlike nonwords, N effects were facilitatory and inhibitory effects of neighbor frequency were reduced.

“When highly wordlike nonwords were used, they found inhibitory effects of neighbor frequency and no effect of N.However, with less wordlike nonwords, N effects were facilitatory and the inhibitory effects of neighbor frequency were reduced.”

• cites Grainger and Jacobs, 1996 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

N is associated with facilitatory effects on lexical classification, at least for low-frequency English words, unless stimuli are blocked by neighborhood size.

“N is associated with facilitatory effects on lexical classification, at least for low-frequency English words, unless stimuli are blocked by neighborhood size.”

May combine two claims.

Facilitatory effects of N do not appear to occur in French and Spanish under standard LDT conditions, but can be seen in particular nonword environments.

“Facilitatory effects ofN do not appear to occur in French and Spanish under standard LDT conditions, but can be seen in particular nonword environments.”

May combine two claims.

The fact that subjects sometimes guess a neighbor shows that the neighbor was active, but does not show that its activation interfered with retrieval of the target word.

“That is, the fact that subjects sometimes guess a neighbor shows that the neighbor was active, but it does not show that its activation interfered with retrieval ofthe target word”

May combine two claims.

The facilitatory effect of N on lexical classification for English words tends to be larger for low-frequency words, primarily due to a reduced N effect for very high-frequency words.

“The effect tends to be larger for low-frequency words, but this appears to be primarily due to a reduced N effect for very high-frequency words (Sears et aI., 1995).”

• cites Sears et al., 1995 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Priming paradigms cannot tell us whether the sensory features of a single target word result in activation of similar neighbors or whether concurrent activation of representations that partially match the input information help or hinder retrieval of the target representation.

“However, they cannot tell us whether the sensory features ofa single target word result in activation of similar neighbors or whether concurrent activation ofrepresentations that partially match the input information help or hinder retrieval ofthe target representation.”

May combine two claims.

In French and Spanish lexical decision, studies reported inhibitory effects of neighbor frequency in combination with either null or facilitatory effects of N.

“In contrast to the English studies, both papers reported inhibitory effects ofneighbor frequency in combination with either null or facilitatory effects ofN.”

• cites Grainger & Jacobs, 1996 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Carreiras et al., 1997 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

In English lexical decision, when N and neighbor frequency are independently manipulated, N has facilitatory effects and neighbor frequency has no effect.

“Sears et al. (1995) found facilitatory effects ofN in four lexical decision experiments using three different samples of 4-letter stimuli and one of 5-letter stimuli, all of which included high-and low-N words with and without a higher frequency neighbor.They found no effect of neighbor frequency.”

• cites Sears et al., 1995 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Forster and Shen, 1996 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Effects of neighborhood size on lexical decision performance depend on the nature of the word/nonword environment and may vary across languages.

“Thus, the effects of neighborhood size on lexical decision performance appear to depend on the nature of the word/nonword environment and may vary across languages.”

May combine two claims.

Grainger and Jacobs (1996) and Carreiras, Perea, and Grainger (1997) replicated the inhibitory effect of neighbor frequency and found a parallel inhibitory effect of neighborhood size, although the latter was not significant in Grainger and Jacobs's data.

“Both investigations replicated the inhibitory effect of neighbor frequency and found a parallel inhibitory effect of neighborhood size, although the latter was not significant in Grainger and Jacobs's data.”

• cites Grainger & Jacobs, 1996 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Carreiras, Perea, & Grainger, 1997 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The empirical evidence on orthographic neighborhood effects is not as contradictory as has been claimed; the conflict is more apparent than real.

“The review reveals that the empirical evidence is not as contradictory as has been claimed.”

• Also stated in: § The effect of orthographic similarity on lexical retrieval: Resolving neighborhood conflicts · hedged

  “To anticipate the outcome ofthe review, it appears that the conflict in the existing evidence is more apparent than real.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Cascaded models usually retain the fundamental assumption of a common lexical retrieval procedure.

“Such models usually retain the fundamental assumption of a common lexical retrieval procedure.”

• cites McClelland, 1979 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The effects of N are compatible with the view that activation of orthographically similar neighbors facilitates rather than interferes with word identification, and there is minimal evidence of interference from higher frequency neighbors.

“The effects ofN are compatible with the view that activation oforthographically similar neighbors facilitates rather than interferes with word identification, and there is minimal evidence ofinterference from higher frequency neighbors to undermine these conclusions.”

May combine two claims.

In Carreiras et al. (1997) Spanish word naming, there was no overall effect of neighbor frequency, but an interaction with N: N showed a facilitatory effect for words with higher frequency neighbors only; neighbor frequency was inhibitory for words with few neighbors, but slightly facilitatory for words with many neighbors.

“There was no overall effect ofneighbor frequency, but an interaction with N. N showed a facilitatory effect for words with higher frequency neighbors only; and the effect of neighbor frequency was inhibitory for words with few neighbors, but slightly facilitatory for words with many neighbors.”

• cites Carreiras et al., 1997 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

If multiple activated candidates are accessible to other cognitive processes, they may provide an alternative basis for achieving task requirements without unique retrieval of the target lexical representation.

“If these multiple candidates are accessible to other cognitive processes, they may provide an alternative basis for achieving task requirements without unique retrieval of the target lexical representation.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

A common lexical identification process underlies all tasks that require retrieval of a specific lexical representation for successful performance.

“According to such frameworks, a common lexical identification process underlies all tasks that require retrieval of a specific lexical representation for successful performance (Monsell et aI., 1989).”

• cites Monsell et aI., 1989 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The only studies reporting inhibitory effects of N in English are by Huntsman and Lima (1996) and Perea and Pollatsek (in press); both compared pairs matched on N and word frequency but either among the most or least frequent in their neighborhoods, and words with higher frequency neighbors were classified more slowly.

“The only studies reporting inhibitory effects of N in English are by Huntsman and Lima (1996) and Perea and Pollatsek (in press).Both experiments compared pairs of items that were matched on N and word frequency, but were either among the most or the least frequent words in their respective neighborhoods.The words with higher frequency neighbors were classified more slowly.”

• cites Huntsman and Lima, 1996 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Perea and Pollatsek, in pressNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

For French and Spanish, neighbor frequency influences performance and clear facilitatory effects of N appear only in word-naming tasks; N effects are inhibitory only in perceptual identification tasks, while LDT shows either null or facilitatory effects depending on nonword environment.

“A different picture appears to emerge for French and Spanish, which do appear to be influenced by neighbor frequency and show clear facilitatory effects ofN only in word-naming tasks.Notably, however, the effects ofN on these languages are still inhibitory only in perceptual identification tasks.The LDT shows either null or facilitatory effects, depending, apparently, on nonword environment (Gra”

• cites Grainger & Jacobs, 1996 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Decision processes may be a major determinant of lexical decision performance.

“it has been argued that decision processes may be a major determinant of lexical decision performance (Balota & Chumbley, 1984;Gordon, 1983).”

• cites Balota & Chumbley, 1984 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Gordon, 1983 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Traditional serial models of visual word recognition assumed a discrete lexical access procedure that selected the lexical representation that best matched the sensory stimulus and allowed retrieval of attributes associated with the lexical item.

“Traditional serial models ofvisual word recognition assumed a discrete lexical access procedure that selected the lexical representation that best matched the sensory stimulus and allowed for retrieval ofattributes associated with the lexical item, such as its pronunciation or meaning (e.g., Forster, 1976;Paap et aI., 1982).”

• cites Forster, 1976 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Paap et aI., 1982 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Systematic changes in the magnitude of the N effect are observed with changes in nonword environment, but regardless of these decision influences, the overall effect of N is facilitatory.

“Systematic changes in the magnitude of the N effect are observed with changes in nonword environment, but regardless of these decision influences, the overall effect of N is facilitatory.”

May combine two claims.

For French and Spanish, words with many neighbors do not suffer inhibition and can show facilitation in some contexts, but when words are selected according to presence of higher frequency neighbors, inhibition is evident.

“Words with many neighbors do not suffer inhibition and can show facilitation in some contexts, but when words are selected according to the presence ofhigher frequency neighbors, inhibition is evident.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Continuous flow of information in cascaded architectures affords the possibility that responses might be based on information apart from the target lexical representation.

“However, the continuous flow ofinformation from one processing stage to another that characterizes cascaded architectures affords the possibility that responses might be able to be based on information apart from the target lexical representation.”

May combine two claims.

Word-naming data present a much more consistent picture than the LDT results; all studies using this task have found facilitatory effects of neighborhood size at least for low-frequency words.

“Word-naming data present a much more consistent picture than the LDT results.All of the studies using this task have found facilitatory effects of neighborhood size at least for low-frequency words.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

If processing is unidirectional, activated candidates available to influence performance will be determined by their orthographic similarity to the target word.

“If processing is unidirectional, then the activated candidates available to influence performance will be determined by their orthographic similarity to the target word.”

May combine two claims.

The same facilitatory pattern holds for the LDT as long as stimuli are English and either all low frequency or balanced for word frequency, and as long as word and nonword stimuli cover the complete range of neighborhood size rather than being blocked by N and length.

“The same pattern holds for the LDT as long as the stimuli are English and either all low frequency or balanced for word frequency (e.g., Andrews, 1989;Forster & Shen, 1996), and as long as the word and nonword stimuli cover the complete range ofneighborhood size rather than being blocked by N and length (Johnson & Pugh, 1994).”

• cites Andrews, 1989 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Forster & Shen, 1996 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Johnson & Pugh, 1994 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Carreiras et al. (1997) found no significant effect of neighborhood size in Spanish semantic categorization, but effects of neighbor frequency were significantly inhibitory for high-N words.

“They also found no significant effect of neighborhood size, but the effects of neighbor frequency were significantly inhibitory for high-N words.”

• cites Carreiras et al., 1997 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The fact that neighbors of the target are available as responses confirms that neighbors can be activated by incomplete sensory features, and therefore provides evidence that neighbor activation might influence word identification.

“The fact that neigh-bors of the target are available as responses confirms that neighbors can be activated by incomplete sensory features, and therefore provides evidence that neighbor activation might influence word identification.”

May combine two claims.

Inhibitory effects of neighbor frequency are primarily restricted to languages other than English; only two of the eight studies of effects of neighborhood frequency in English have reported an inhibitory effect.

“However, closer inspection suggests that inhibitory effects of neighbor frequency are primarily restricted to languages other than English.Only two ofthe eight studies of effects ofneighborhood frequency in English have reported an inhibitory effect.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Forster and Shen's semantic categorization experiments showed no systematic effects of either neighborhood size or frequency, although both experiments showed a significant facilitatory effect in the subjects' analyses which did not generalize over items.

“Their results showed no systematic effects of either neighborhood size or frequency, although both experiments showed a significant facilitatory effect in the subjects' analyses which did not generalize over items.”

• cites Forster and Shen, 1996 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

It is debated whether neighborhood activation effects on word naming necessarily reflect lexical retrieval; they may instead be due to effects of orthographic structure on nonlexical naming procedures.

“What is the subject ofdebate is whether neighborhood activation effects on word naming necessarily reflect lexical retrieval.They may instead be due to the effects oforthographic structure on nonlexical naming procedures.”

May combine two claims.

The most obvious determinant of variability in neighbor frequency effects is language; only 2 studies using English stimuli have reported inhibition while 11 have reported either null or facilitatory effects in carefully controlled samples manipulating both neighborhood size and frequency.

“The most obvious determinant of this variability is language.Only 2 studies using English stimuli have reported inhibition (Huntsman & Lima, 1996;Perea & Pollatsek, in press) while II have reported either null or facilitatory effects in carefully controlled samples of words manipulating both neighborhood size and frequency (Forster & Shen, 1996; Sears et aI., 1995).”

• cites Huntsman & Lima, 1996 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Perea & Pollatsek, in pressNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Forster & Shen, 1996 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

In English, there is a relatively consistent pattern of results and no inherent contradiction between the effects of neighborhood size and neighbor frequency.

“In English, there is both a relatively consistent pattern ofresults, and no inherent contradiction between the effects ofneighborhood size and neighbor frequency.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Although effects of neighbor frequency on LDT performance for languages other than English appear consistent, in that inhibition has been observed in eight of nine published experiments, questions remain about their generality.

“Although the effects of neighbor frequency on LDT performance for languages other than English appear to be consistent, in the sense that inhibition has been observed in eight ofthe nine published experiments, questions remain about their generality.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Different task requirements may fundamentally change the processes involved in retrieval and use of word attributes.

“Different task requirements may fundamentally change the processes involved in retrieval and use of word attributes.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

The strategies that subjects use to resolve partial stimulus information over successive degraded presentations may not be the same as those involved when neighbors are activated by a single presentation of the stimulus features of another word.

“However, the strategies that subjects use to resolve partial stimulus information over successive degraded presentations may not be the same as those involved when neighbors are activated by a single presentation of the stimulus features of another word.”

May combine two claims.

Reducing the completeness of stimulus information will have more of an effect on words that are similar to many words than on words with few neighbors, because with only a single opportunity to respond, subjects may guess a high-frequency neighbor of the target and therefore achieve lower overall accuracy.

“Reducing the completeness of stimulus information will have more of an effect on words that are similar to many words than on words with few neighbors, because, with only a single opportunity to respond, subjects may guess a high-frequency neighbor of the target and therefore achieve lower overall accuracy than they would for words with few similar neighbors.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Parallel activation models assume that a set of lexical representations are activated by sensory input.

“This is particularly evident in models relying on parallel activation mechanisms (see, e.g., McClelland & Rumelhart, 1981), which assume that a set of lexical representations are activated by sensory input.”

• cites McClelland & Rumelhart, 1981 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Identification of English words is more consistently influenced by neighborhood size than by neighbor frequency, and the effects of this variable are almost always facilitatory except in perceptual identification tasks.

“At this overall level, then, the data suggest that identification of English words is more consistently influenced by neighborhood size than by neighbor frequency, and that the effects ofthis variable are almost always facilitatory except in perceptual identification tasks.”

May combine two claims.

Semantic categorization performance does not show consistent effects of either neighborhood size or neighbor frequency.

“Semantic categorization performance does not show consistent effects ofeither neighborhood size or neighbor frequency (Forster & Shen, 1996).”

• cites Forster & Shen, 1996 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Body neighbors usually rhyme, so N effects may be attributable to phonological rather than orthographic similarity.

“Body neighbors usually rhyme, so N effects may be attributable to phonological rather than orthographic similarity.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Within Grainger and Jacobs's model, the absence of inhibitory N effects on LDT performance implies that lexical decisions are never based on unique word identification.

“Within Grainger and Jacobs's (1996) model, the absence of inhibitory N effects on LOT performance implies that lexical decisions are never based on unique word identification.”

• cites Grainger and Jacobs's (1996) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

It is not sufficient for proponents of computational models to claim that they are not theoretically committed to a particular set of representational assumptions but have adopted them to achieve computational tractability, because the manner in which inputs are parsed and representations are organized critically determines the set of words that will be activated by a particular target.

“Thus, it is not sufficient for the proponents of computational models to claim that they are not theoretically committed to a particular set of representational assumptions but have adopted them to achieve computational tractability (e.g., Seidenberg & McClelland, 1989), because the manner in which inputs are parsed and representations are organized critically determines the set of words that will”

• cites Seidenberg & McClelland, 1989 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The evidence concerning the contribution of decision processes to lexical classification performance is contradictory.

“The evidence concerning the contribution of decision processes to lexical classification performance is contradictory.”

May combine two claims.

The two interpretations (cohort resolution vs serial verification) are conceptually indistinguishable in the sense that both implicate an additional process invoked under blocked, but not mixed, stimulus-context conditions and yield a linear inhibitory effect of N.

“Indeed, the two interpretations are conceptually indistinguishable in the sense that both implicate an additional process that is invoked under blocked, but not mixed, stimulus-context conditions and yields a linear inhibitory effect ofN.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

The N metric definition implies that word representations are coded for length so that possible neighbors are restricted to words of the same length as the target.

“and that word representations are coded for length so that the cohorts ofpossible neighbors are restricted to words of the same length as the target.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Monsell et al. reported equivalent frequency effects in categorization and lexical decision when the categorization task required judgments of a single semantic category rather than changing categories.

“Monsell et al. reported equivalent frequency effects in categorization and lexical decision when the categorization task required judgments ofa single semantic category (people/thing) rather than the changing categories used by Balota and Chumbley.”

• cites Monsell et al. (1989) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The N metric definition implies that words are coded in terms of position-specific letter representations.

“This definition appears to imply two general assumptions about the representations underlying lexical retrieval: that words are coded in terms of position-specific letter representations”

May combine two claims.

If the perceptual identification data are an unreliable index of lexical selection, then there is no evidence of inhibitory influences of N in any task.

“Moreover, if the perceptual identification data are an unreliable index of lexical selection, then there is no evidence of inhibitory influences of N in any task.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Monsell et al. concluded in favor of a frequency-sensitive lexical identification process common to lexical decision, semantic categorization, and naming tasks, but acknowledged each task was also susceptible to influence from postidentification processes.

“Monsell et al. concluded in favor of a frequency-sensitive lexical identification process that was common to lexical decision, semantic categorization, and naming tasks, but acknowledged that each task was also susceptible to influence from such postidentification processes as retrieval ofmeaning or such parallel processes as pronunciation assembly.”

• cites Monsell et al. (1989) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The fact that neighbors are not evenly distributed across letter positions raises the possibility that N is related to other similarity constructs.

“More generally, the fact that neighbors are not evenly distributed across letter positions raises the possibility that N is related to other similarity constructs.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Treiman et al. (1995) argue that rime/body units come to play an important role in reading English words because the lexical statistics of the language provide a potential way for readers to deal with the vagaries of the English writing system.

“Treiman et al. (1995) argue that rimelbody units come to play an important role in reading English words because the”

• cites Treiman et al. (1995) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

These assumptions are, to a large degree, a reflection of pragmatic limitations on the process of implementing the simulation.

“These assumptions are, to a large degree, a reflection of pragmatic limitations on the process ofimplementing the simulation.”

May combine two claims.

The consistency of pronunciation of body units remains a significant predictor of adult naming performance and accounts for variability over and above that due to grapheme-phoneme correspondences.

“The consistency ofpronunciation ofbody units remains a significant predictor of adult naming performance and accounts for variability over and above that due to grapheme-phoneme correspondences (Treiman et aI., 1995).”

• cites Treiman et al., 1995 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The model's reliance on a slot-based coding scheme means that extending the model to other lengths would require separate input nodes for each letter position in words of every length.

“However, the model's reliance on a slot-based coding scheme in which each letter position is treated independently means that extending the model to other lengths would require separate input nodes for each letter position in words of every length.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

In all research discussed, the construct of a lexical neighbor has been operationalized according to Coltheart et al.'s (1977) N metric.

“In all of the research discussed so far, the construct of a lexical neighbor has been operationalized according to Coltheart et al.'s (1977) N metric.”

• cites Coltheart et al.'s (1977)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

French and Spanish stimuli appear to yield null effects in these conditions, but there is no evidence in any language that a large number of activated neighbors cause inhibition.

“French and Spanish stimuli appear to yield null effects in these conditions, but there is no evidence in any language that a large number of activated neighbors cause inhibition.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Blocking allows subjects to anticipate, and therefore to vary their strategy, for different stimuli in a manner that is not possible with standard mixed-presentation conditions.

“This specific account is speculative, but what is clear is that blocking allows subjects to anticipate, and therefore to vary their strategy, for different stimuli in a manner that is not possible with standard mixed-presentation conditions.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Both discriminations that are too easy and discriminations that are too difficult can be argued to be influenced by information other than unique word identification: easy tasks may allow decisions to be based on overall lexical activity instead of lexical retrieval, and difficult discriminations may cause subjects to seek additional information beyond lexical retrieval to verify their decision.

“Both discriminations that are too easy and discriminations that are too difficult can be argued to be influenced by information other than unique word identification: easy tasks may allow decisions to be based on overall lexical activity instead oflexical retrieval, and difficult discriminations may cause subjects to seek additional information beyond lexical retrieval to verify their decision.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

N effects may, in part, reflect correlations between N and body-defined neighborhoods.

“so N effects may, in part, reflect correlations between N and body-defined neighborhoods.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

The interactive activation model is implemented with the assumption that letter positions are entirely independent so that there is no greater similarity between the same letter in different positions than between two different letters.

“These are the assumptions built into the interactive activation model that is implemented with the even stronger assumption that letter positions are entirely independent so that there is no greater similarity between the same letter in different positions than between two different letters.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The original interactive activation simulation was restricted to a vocabulary of 4-letter words, so restricting neighbors to words of the same length was an implementational rather than a conceptual decision.

“For example, the original interactive activation simulation was restricted to a vocabulary of 4-letter words, so restricting neighbors to words of the same length was an implementational rather than a conceptual decision.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Spanish is a highly regular language with a shallow relationship between orthography and phonology.

“Spanish is a highly regular language with a shallow relationship between orthography and phonology”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

If effects of N were really due primarily to items with common bodies, they might implicate representational assumptions that were relatively different from those reflecting sensitivity to neighbors at all letter positions.

“If effects ofN were really due primarily to items with common bodies, they might implicate representational assumptions that were relatively different from those reflecting sensitivity to neighbors at all letter positions.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The conclusion that lexical decisions are never based on unique word identification rests on accepting the perceptual identification task as the touchstone for unique word identification.

“However, this conclusion rests on accepting the perceptual identification task as the touchstone for unique word identification, since this is the only task that yields consistently inhibitory effects ofN, at least under singleresponse conditions.”

May combine two claims.

The addition of a serial verification process under blocked conditions yields the same general predictions as cohort resolution: increased latency for high-N relative to low-N words and an overall reduction in error rate.

“The addition ofa serial verification process (e.g., Paap et aI., 1982) under blocked conditions yields the same general predictions as cohort resolution: increased latency for high-N relative to low-N words and an overall reduction in error rate.”

• cites Paap et aI., 1982 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

There may be little need for the reader to develop sensitivity to relationships higher than the grapheme-phoneme level to determine the mapping from orthography to phonology in Spanish.

“so there may be little need for the reader to develop sensitivity to relationships higher than the grapheme-phoneme level to determine the mapping from orthography to phonology.”

May combine two claims.

Degraded stimuli provide a perceptual input that is compatible with a number of stimuli and therefore yield poorer identification performance for words that are similar to other words, unless these alternative responses can be eliminated through repeated guesses.

“Degraded stimuli provide a perceptual input that is compatible with a number of stimuli and therefore, not surprisingly,yield poorer identification performance for words that are similar to other words, unless these alternative responses can be eliminated through repeated guesses.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Treiman et al. (1995) reported that orthographic bodies were more redundant than other within-word units.

“Treiman, Mullennix, Bijeljac-Babic, & Richmond-Welty (1995) reported a systematic analysis of the orthographic-phonological relationships embodied in English monosyllabic words, which showed both that orthographic bodies were more redundant than other within-word units”

• cites Treiman et al. (1995) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Facilitatory N effects are due to reliance on an intralexical familiarity criterion, while inhibitory neighborhood effects observed in perceptual identification tasks reflect unique word-identification processes.

“Facilitatory N effects are due to reliance on this intralexical familiarity criterion, while the inhibitory neighborhood effects observed in perceptual identification tasks reflect unique word-identification processes.”

• cites Grainger & Jacobs, 1996 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Because N is highly correlated with number of body neighbors, this metric successfully accounts for variability in performance.

“and, because N is highly correlated with number of body neighbors, this metric successfully accounts for variability in performance.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The majority of the research on effects of neighborhood structure has focused on 4-letter words because N affects only short words-long words do not have neighbors by the N definition.

“The majority of the research on effects of neighborhood structure has focused on 4-letter words because, in a sense, N affects only short words-long words do not have neighbors by the N definition.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Rimes are seen as the natural phonological constituent of the spoken syllable and are therefore salient in spoken words across all languages (Treiman, 1988).

“Rimes are seen as the natural phonological constituent ofthe spoken syllable and are therefore salient in spoken words across all languages (Treiman, 1988).”

• cites Treiman, 1988Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

N is a less effective predictor of performance in other languages either because shallower orthographies do not require the same degree of use of orthographic redundancy to achieve successful retrieval and/or because the N metric is a less effective summary of the dimensions of orthographic redundancy that are relevant to that language.

“It is a less effective predictor of performance in other languages either because shallower orthographies do not require the same degree of use of orthographic redundancy to achieve successful retrieval and! or because the N metric is a less effective summary of the dimensions of orthographic redundancy that are relevant to that language.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Empirical data on the effects of lexical similarity provide essential constraints to govern the development of models of this process.

“In the same way that the need to discriminate between similar words may have shaped the human word-recognition system, empirical data on the effects oflexical similarity provide essential constraints to govern the development of models of this process.”

May combine two claims.

Taft and Radeau (1995) reported that French subjects' pronunciations of ambiguous nonwords did not show the influence of body units that is characteristic in English but appeared instead to be based on a syllabic parsing strategy.

“Consistent with the view that bodies do not play the important role in processing French that they do in English, Taft and Radeau (1995) reported that French subjects' pronunciations of ambiguous nonwords did not show the influence of body units that is characteristic in English (Andrews & Scarratt, in press;Patterson & Morton, 1985) but appeared instead to be based on a syllabic parsing strategy.”

• cites Taft and Radeau (1995) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

If body units play a special role in English, it must arise because of the specific mapping of orthography to phonology and therefore depend on exposure to orthography.

“Thus, ifbody units playa special role in English, it must arise because ofthe specific mapping of orthography to phonology and therefore depend on exposure to orthography.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Sensitivity to body units might be expected to arise in all languages that systematically map between orthography and phonology, because of a tendency to parse the orthographic form into units corresponding to its phonological constituents.

“Sensitivity to body units might, therefore, be expected to arise in all languages that systematically map between orthography and phonology, because of a tendency to parse the orthographic form into units corresponding to its phonological constituents.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

Body units may be an emergent property of a distributed representational system that also allows for the representation of any other systematic relationships between orthography and phonology.

“Body units”

• cites Seidenberg & McClelland, 1989 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

This may be more true for English than for other alphabetic languages.

“This may be more true for English than for other alphabetic languages.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

The apparent differences in the facilitatory effects of N in English by comparison with French and Spanish may arise because orthographic redundancy plays a greater role in English because of its higher level of phonological inconsistency.

“Thus, the apparent differences in the facilitatory effects of N in English by comparison with French and Spanish may arise because orthographic redundancy plays a greater role in English because of its higher level of phonological inconsistency.”

May combine two claims.

The special role played by these neighbors may be relatively specific to English because it reflects particular properties of the orthographic-phonological mapping of the language: the differential ambiguity of vowels and consonants, and the greater statistical redundancy of body as compared with initial CV units.

“The”

• cites Treiman et al., 1995 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Spanish is a syllabically structured language and almost all words have at least two syllables.

“Besides its shallow mapping relationship, Spanish is a syllabically structured language and almost all words have at least two syllables.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing).

If words were parsed into syllabic units early in processing, then long words might be susceptible to influence from syllabically defined neighbors via mechanisms similar to those underlying N effects for monosyllabic words.

“If, for example, words were parsed into syllabic units early in processing (Spoehr & Smith, 1973;Taft, 1979), then long words might be susceptible to influence from syllabically defined neighbors via mechanisms similar to those underlying N effects for monosyllabic words.”

• cites Spoehr & Smith, 1973 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Taft, 1979 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The ambiguities in the orthographic-phonological mapping in French are different from those in English: the pronunciations of final consonants are more ambiguous than those of vowels, and body/rime units make little contribution to resolving inconsistencies because of the predominance of open syllables (Content, 1991).

“For example, the ambiguities in the orthographic-phonological mapping in French are different from those in English: the pronunciations offinal consonants are more ambiguous than those of vowels, and body/rime units make little contribution to resolving inconsistencies because of the predominance ofopen syllables (Content, 1991).”

• cites Content, 1991 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The pronunciations of vowels are better predicted by the final than by the initial consonants.

“and that the pronunciations ofvowels are better predicted by the final than by the initial consonants.”

• cites Treiman et al. (1995) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The recognition of body units helps to regularize the links between spelling and sound in the English writing system.

“Thus, the recognition ofbody units”

• cites Treiman et al. (1995) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Multisyllabic words have rarely been included in English investigations of neighborhood structure.

“Multisyllabic words haverarely been included in English investigations of neighborhood structure.”