Consonant, vowel and lexical neighbourhood processing during word recognition: New evidence using the sandwich priming technique

Figures & data

Table 1. Mean lexical decision reaction times (in ms; SDs in brackets) and response accuracy (in %, SDs in brackets) for 50 ms primes, in the classic (New et al., 2008) versus sandwich priming task (present Exp. 1) and for 66 ms primes, in the classic (New & Nazzi, 2014, Exp. 2) versus sandwich priming tasks (present Exp. 2–3).

	Experiment
	1 (50 ms prime)		2 (66 ms prime)		3 (66 ms prime)
	Sandwich (33 ms pre-prime)	Classic Priming	Sandwich (33 ms pre-prime)	Classic Priming	Sandwich (50 ms pre-prime)
Latency
C-related	621 (125)	631 (131)	635 (142)	610 (116)	638 (138)
V-related	649 (135)	651 (130)	643 (133)	648 (127)	644 (142)
Unrelated	657 (136)	649 (139)	648 (122)	621 (120)	653 (137)
Accuracy
C-related	85.9 (34.8)	85.5 (34.8)	87.0 (33.7)	84.0 (36.7)	84.5 (36.2)
V-related	84.4 (36.3)	82.3 (38.2)	84.7 (36.0)	77.1 (42.1)	84.7 (36.0)
Unrelated	84.9 (35.8)	85.7 (35.0)	86.3 (34.3)	83.7 (36.9)	85.7 (35.0)

Figure 1. Effect of consonant and vowel priming as a function of prime duration and paradigm type: 50 ms (classic vs. sandwich, Experiment 1) and 66 ms (classic vs. sandwich 33 ms pre-prime in Experiment 2 vs. sandwich 50 ms pre-prime in Experiment 3). Error bars indicate standard errors of the mean.

Table 2. Results of model 1 including Prime Type and Target Type as fixed factors (sandwich experiments). The R formula was: log10(RT) ∼ TypeCV * Prime + (1|Subject) + (1|Word).

	β (Estimate)	SE	t-value	Probability > |t|
Experiment 1: 33-50 ms
(Intercept)	2.804	0.007	392.14	<.001
C- vs. V-starting (Target Type)	0.003	0.009	0.35	0.73
Consonant-related vs. Unrelated (C-U; Prime Type contrast 1)	0.025	0.004	7.08	<.001
Vowel-related vs. Unrelated (U-V; Prime Type contrast 2)	−0.006	0.004
−1.72	0.09
Target Type * C-U	−0.005	0.007	−0.69	0.49
Target Type * V-U	0.002	0.007	0.35	0.73
Experiment 2: 33-66 ms
(Intercept)	2.805	0.007	384.70	<.001
C- vs. V-starting (Target Type)	0.015	0.010	1.52	0.13
Consonant-related vs. Unrelated (C-U; Prime Type contrast 1)	0.014	0.003	3.25	0.001
Vowel-related vs. Unrelated (U-V; Prime Type contrast 2)	−0.004	0.003	−1.21	0.23
Target Type * C-U	−0.004	0.007	−0.55	0.58
Target Type * V-U	0.002	0.007	0.28	0.78
Experiment 3: 50-66 ms
(Intercept)	2.806	0.008	335.51	<.001
C- vs. V-starting (Target Type)	0.015	0.009	1.62	0.11
Consonant-related vs. Unrelated (C-U; Prime Type contrast 1)	0.009	0.003	2.65	0.008
Vowel-related vs. Unrelated (U-V; Prime Type contrast 2)	−0.005	0.003	−1.47	0.14
Target Type * C-U	−0.008	0.007	−1.07	0.28
Target Type * V-U	0.005	0.007	0.76	0.45

Table 3. Results of model 2 including Prime Type and Paradigm Type as fixed factors (comparing classic and sandwich experiments). The R formula was: log10(RT) ∼ Prime * Experiment + (1|Subject) + (1|Word).

	β (Estimate)	Standard Error	t-value	Probability > |t|
Experiment 1: 33-50 ms
(Intercept)	2.804	0.008	368.61	<.001
Consonant-related vs. Unrelated (C-U; classic paradigm only)	0.011	0.004	2.85	0.004
Vowel-related vs. Unrelated (U-V; classic paradigm only)	0.003	0.004	0.82	0.41
Paradigm Type	0.002	0.009	0.21	0.83
Paradigm Type * C-U	0.014	0.005	2.82	0.005
Paradigm Type * U-V	−0.009	0.005	−1.88	0.06
Experiment 2: 33-66 ms
(Intercept)	2.795	0.007	400.84	<.001
Consonant-related vs. Unrelated (C-U; classic paradigm only)	0.010	0.004	2.54	0.01
Vowel-related vs. Unrelated (U-V; classic paradigm only)	0.017	0.004	4.25	<.001
Paradigm Type	0.010	0.007	1.37	0.17
Paradigm Type * C-U	0.002	0.005	0.34	0.73
Paradigm Type * U-V	−0.022	0.005	−4.11	<.001
Experiment 3: 50-66 ms
(Intercept)	2.795	0.008	368.04	<.001
Consonant-related vs. Unrelated (C-U; classic paradigm only)	0.010	0.004	2.54	0.01
Vowel-related vs. Unrelated (U-V; classic paradigm only)	0.017	0.004	4.25	<.001
Paradigm Type	0.010	0.007	1.37	0.17
Paradigm Type * C-U	−0.002	0.005	−0.03	0.97
Paradigm Type * U-V	−0.022	0.005	−4.26	<.001

New, B., Araujo, V., & Nazzi, T. (2008). Differential processing of consonants and vowels in lexical access through reading. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1223–1227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02228.x

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

New, B., & Nazzi, T. (2014). The time course of consonant and vowel processing during word recognition. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(2), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.735678

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar