Abstract
K. Rastle and M. Coltheart (1999) challenged parallel models of reading by showing that the cost of irregularity in low-frequency exception words was modulated by the position of the irregularity in the word. This position-of-irregularity effect was taken as strong evidence of serial processing in reading. This article refutes Rastle and Coltheart's theoretical conclusions in 3 ways: First, a parallel model, the connectionist dual process model (M. Zorzi, G. Houghton & B. Butterworth, 1998b), produces a position-of-irregularity effect. Second, the supposed serial effect can be reduced to a position-specific grapheme-phoneme consistency effect. Third, the position-of-irregularity effect vanishes when the experimental data are reanalyzed using grapheme-phoneme consistency as the covariate. This demonstration has broader implications for studies aiming at adjudicating between models: Strong inferences should be avoided until the computational models are actually tested.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 847-856 |
Number of pages | 10 |
Journal | Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance |
Volume | 26 |
Issue number | 2 |
Publication status | Published - Apr 2000 |
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Cognitive Neuroscience
- Experimental and Cognitive Psychology