↓ Skip to main content

List context effects in languages with opaque and transparent orthographies: a challenge for models of reading

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
List context effects in languages with opaque and transparent orthographies: a challenge for models of reading
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01023
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniela Traficante, Cristina Burani

Abstract

This paper offers a review of data which show that reading is a flexible and dynamic process and that readers can exert strategic control over it. Two main hypotheses on the control of reading processes have been suggested: the route de-emphasis hypothesis and the time-criterion hypothesis. According to the former, the presence of irregular words in the list might lead to an attenuation of the non-lexical process, while the presence of non-words could trigger a de-emphasis of the lexical route. An alternative account is proposed by the time-criterion hypothesis whereby the reader sets a flexible deadline to initiate the response. According to the latter view, it is the average pronunciation difficulty of the items in the block that modulates the time-criterion for response. However, it is worth noting that the list composition has been shown to exert different effects in transparent compared to opaque orthographies, as the consistency of spelling-sound correspondences can influence the processing costs of the non-lexical pathway. In transparent orthographies, the non-lexical route is not resource demanding and can successfully contribute to the pronunciation of regular words, thus its de-emphasis could not be as useful/necessary as in opaque orthographies. The complex patterns of results from the literature on list context effects are a challenge for computational models of reading which face the problem of simulating strategic control over reading processes. Different proposals suggest a modification of parameter setting in the non-lexical route or the implementation of a new module aimed at focusing attention on the output of the more convenient pathway. Simulation data and an assessment of the models' fit to the behavioral results are presented and discussed to shed light on the role of the cognitive system when reading aloud.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Colombia 1 4%
Unknown 22 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 25%
Student > Master 4 17%
Researcher 4 17%
Professor 2 8%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 5 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 38%
Linguistics 4 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 5 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 September 2014.
All research outputs
#18,378,085
of 22,763,032 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,040
of 29,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,844
of 246,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#317
of 358 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,763,032 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,675 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 246,452 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 358 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.