Syllabic Strategy as Opposed to Coda Optimization in the Segmentation of Spanish Letter-Strings Using Word Spotting

References

• Álvarez, C. J., Carreiras, M., & Perea, M. (2004). Are syllables phonological units in visual word recognition? Language and Cognitive Processes, 19, 427–452. doi:10.1080/01690960344000242
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Álvarez, C. J., Carreiras, M., & Taft, M. (2001). Syllables and morphemes: Contrasting frequency effects in Spanish. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 545–555. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.27.2.545
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, D. M. (2005). Fitting linear mixed models in R. R News, 5, 27–30.
   Google Scholar
• Bates, D., & Maechler, B. (2009). Lme 4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-27.
   Google Scholar
• Bradley, D. C., Sánchez-Casas, R. M., & García-Albea, J. E. (1993). The status of the syllable in the perception of Spanish and English. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 197–233. doi:10.1080/01690969308406954
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carreiras, M., Álvarez, C. J., & de Vega, M. (1993). Syllable frequency and visual word recognition in Spanish. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 766–780. doi:10.1006/jmla.1993.1038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, H.-C., & Vaid, J. (2007). Word frequency modulates the Basic Orthographic Syllabic Structure (BOSS) effect in English polysyllable word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 58–82. doi:10.1080/01690960500372717
   Google Scholar
• Conrad, M., Grainger, J., & Jacobs, A. M. (2007). Phonology as the source of syllable frequency effects in visual word recognition: Evidence from French. Memory and Cognition, 35, 974–983. doi:10.3758/BF03193470
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutler, A., Mehler, J., Norris, D. G., & Segui, J. (1986). The syllable’s differing role in the segmentation of French and English. Journal of Memory & Language, 25, 385–400. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(86)90033-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, C. J., & Perea, M. (2005). BuscaPalabras: A program for deriving orthographic and phonological neighborhood statistics and other psycholinguistic indices in Spanish. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 665–671. doi:10.3758/BF03192738
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frith, U., Wimmer, H., & Landerl, K. (1998). Differences in phonological recoding in German- and English-speaking children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 31–54. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0201_2
   Google Scholar
• Goswami, U., Ziegler, J. C., Dalton, L., & Schneider, W. (2001). Pseudohomophone effects and phonological recoding procedures in reading development in English and German. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 648–664. doi:10.1006/jmla.2001.2790
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, J. W. (1983). Syllable structure and stress in Spanish: A nonlinear analysis. In Linguistic inquiry monograph (Vol. 8). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Katz, L., & Frost, R. (1992). The reading process is different for different orthographies. In R. Frost & L. Katz (Eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning (pp. 67–84). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: North-Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2013). lmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package). R-Version: 1.1-0. Retrieved from http://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/lmerTest/index.html
   Google Scholar
• Macizo, P., & Van Petten, C. (2007). Syllable frequency in lexical decision and naming of English words. Reading and Writing, 20, 295–331. doi:10.1007/s11145-006-9032-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McQueen, J. M. (1996). Word spotting. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 695–699. doi:10.1080/016909696387114
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. (1998). Effects of syllable frequency and syllable neighborhood frequency in visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 134–144. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.24.1.134
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pulgram, E. (1970). Syllable, word, nexus, cursus. The Hague, the Netherlands: Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Sebastián-Gallés, N., Dupoux, E., Segui, J., & Mehler, J. (1992). Contrasting syllabic effects in Catalan and Spanish. Journal of Memory & Language, 31, 18–32. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(92)90003-G
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sebastián-Gallés, N., Martí, M. A., Carreiras, M., & Cuetos, F. (2000). LEXESP: Léxicoinformatizado del español. Barcelona, Spain: EdicionsUniversitat de Barcelona.
   Google Scholar
• Seidenberg, M. S. (1987). Sublexical structures in visual word recognition: Access units or orthographic redundancy? In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance (Vol. XII, pp. 245–263). London, UK: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Seymour, P., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143–174. doi:10.1348/000712603321661859
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solso, R. L., & Juel, C. L. (1980). Positional frequency and versatility of bigrams for two- through nine-letter English words. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 12, 297–343. doi:10.3758/BF03201669
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taft, M. (1979). Lexical access via an orthographic code: The Basic Orthographic Syllabic Structure (BOSS). Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 21–39. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90544-9
   Google Scholar
• Taft, M. (1987). Morphographic processing. The BOSS re-emerges. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance (Vol. XII, pp. 265–279). London, UK: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Taft, M. (1992). The body of the BOSS: Subsyllabic units in the lexical processing of polysyllabic words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 1004–1014. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.18.4.1004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taft, M. (2001). Processing of orthographic structure by adults of different reading ability. Language and Speech, 44, 351–376. doi:10.1177/00238309010440030301
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taft, M. (2002). Orthographic processing of polysyllabic words by native and non-native English speakers. Brain & Language, 81, 532–544. doi:10.1006/brln.2001.2545
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taft, M., & Álvarez, C. J. (2014). Coda optimization in the segmentation of English polysyllabic letter-strings. Experimental Psychology, 61(6), 488–494. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000266
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taft, M., Álvarez, C. J., & Carreiras, M. (2007). Cross-language differences in the use of internal orthographic structure when reading polysyllabic words. The Mental Lexicon, 2, 49–63. doi:10.1075/ml.2.1.04taf
   Google Scholar
• Taft, M., & Hambly, G. (1985). The influence of orthography on phonological representations in the lexicon. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 320–335. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(85)90031-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taft, M., & Kougious, P. (2004). The processing of morpheme-like units in monomorphemic words. Brain and Language, 90, 9–16. doi:10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00415-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taft, M., Xu, J., & Li, S. (2017). Letter coding in visual word recognition: The impact of embedded words. Journal of Memory and Language, 92, 14–25. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2016.05.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading acrosslanguages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 3–29. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar