Psyc 340 - Mt2

Front 1

grapheme

Back 1

smallest unit of written language, corresponds to phoneme

Front 2

types of scripts (4)

Back 2

Alphabetic, consonantal, syllabic, logographic/idographic

Front 3

Dual route model

Back 3

"race" of roots
1. Lexical route AKA direct access
2. GPC - Grapheme to phoneme conversion
-AKA indirect or sublexical

Front 4

pseudohomophone effect

Back 4

pseudohomophones are nonwords that sound like words (ex: nite - night)
-can be read faster than other nonwords, slower to reject
-caused by visual similarity (?)

Front 5

Glushko 1979: lexical effects on nonword reading

Back 5

-pronunciation of nonwords affected by pronunciation of similar words
-slower reaction time for ambiguous pronunciations
-ex taze quicker to be pronounced than tave (cave vs. have)
-pronunciation neighborhood, friends, enemies etc.

Front 6

Weak phonological view

Back 6

recognition of word can be influenced by phonology
- primarily driven by direct, although can be influenced by indirect route

Front 7

phonological mediation model

Back 7

we primarily get to meaning through sound of word

Front 8

Silent reading and inner speech

Back 8

-slower to read tongue twisters
-Deaf people read slower, convert to ASL in minds
-sentences that are 'hand twisters' slower to be read

Front 9

Surface dyslexia

Back 9

-cannot read irregular words
-Dual route model suggests indirect route is impaired

Front 10

Phonological dyslexia

Back 10

-Cannot read pronouncable nonwords
-Dual route model suggests direct route is impaired
-Low frequency and low imageability words also poorly read
-Lots of visual errors (ex read perform as perfume) > orthographic dyslexia

Front 11

3 stage model of sublexical processing

Back 11

1. Graphemic analysis: parses letters into graphemes
2. Print-to-Sound conversion: graphemes > phonemes
3. Phonemic blending stage:sounds assembled into phonological representation

phonological dyslexia = stage 3

Front 12

deep dyslexia

Back 12

-Inability to read nonwords and grammatical function words
-semantic paralexias
-imageability important

Front 13

semantic paralexia

Back 13

produce semantically related words instead of target
(ex daughter instead of sister)

related to imageability

Front 14

3 types of deep dyslexia

Back 14

Input deep dyslexics:
Difficulty in reaching the exact semantic representations of words in reading.

Central deep dyslexics: Severe auditory comprehension deficit in addition to their reading difficulties

Output deep dyslexics: Process words up to their semantic representations, but then have difficulty producing the appropriate phonological output.

Front 15

Non-semantic reading (type of dyslexia)

Back 15

Can read aloud but not understand, ability to convert graphemes into speech w/o semantic processing

Front 16

Dyslexia in other languages

Back 16

shallow orthographies do not show surface dyslexia as phonemes = graphemes 1:1

Front 17

Revised dual route model (Dual route cascaded/DRC)

Back 17

1. Direct route has semantic and non-semantic flavors
2. Indirect route split into GPC and....
3. Body subsystem: orthographic correspondances b/t orthographic body and rime

Front 18

Seidenberg/McClelland SM model

Back 18

AKA triangle model
-3 types of code all linked through feedback: orthographic, phonological and meaning

Front 19

semantic glue hypothesis

Back 19

-in relation to surface dyslexia of people with dementia
- semantic representations bind phonological representations together like glue
-dissolution of semantic system > loss of direct route >surface dyslexia

Front 20

Frith 3 stages of reading development

Back 20

1. Logographic stage: recognizes words by salient characteristics, cannot read new or non-words
2. Alphabetic stage: learning to read by grapheme-phoneme correspondances
3. Orthographic stage: able to read words without breaking it down (adult like), can still use GPC for new/nonwords

Front 21

Ehri 4 phases of reading development - alphabetic

Back 21

1. Pre-alphabetic: rote memorization of words and meanings, short and sometimes skipped
2. Partial alphabetic: partial knowledge of letter names/sounds, usually first/last letters
3. Full alphabetic: can read new words (GPC), partial access
4. Consolidated alphabetic: letter patterns become common, words can be read by syllable, rime, etc.

Front 22

Two types of language knowledge

Back 22

1. Epilinguistic knowledge: implicit knowledge, used unconsciously
2. Metalinguistic knowledge: explicit knowledge processes, aware and can be used deliberately

Front 23

Phonological awareness (4 factors)

Back 23

awareness of sounds measured by tasks such as naming the common sound in words
-Factors: manipulating single sounds, holding sounds in memory while performing operations, segmentation skills, rhyming skills

Front 24

phonological awareness correlates (2)

Back 24

1. Literacy - illiterate adults have less phonological awareness
2. Literacy in alphabetic scripts: chinese monolinguals (idiographic script) have less awareness than chinese-english bilinguals

Front 25

reading by analogy

Back 25

-ability to identify rhymes correlated w/ ability to read
-rime particularly important
-older reading age, more reliance on rime

Front 26

psycholinguistic grain size theory

Back 26

-Different languages have different sizes of key unit used when learning to read
-in English, the rime
-German,Greek,Spanish- smaller units, older children rely on GPC w/o needing to read by analogy

Front 27

methods of learning to read(2)

Back 27

1.Look and say/whole word method > less effective
2. Phonic method: associate sounds w/ letters and letter sequences > GPC, more effective

Front 28

Types of phonics instruction (2)

Back 28

1. Analytic phonics - sounds introduced after reading has begun, practice using words that share common sounds
2. Synthetic phonics - taught all letters/sounds ex ante and emphasize word building activities
-advantages in reading to spell later

Front 29

Neurological features of developmental dyslexics (3)

Back 29

1. Left Planum Temporale (in Wernicke's area) closer in size than right
2. Neurons smaller in left Medial Geniculate Nucleus
3. Occipital regions show higher activity > using visualization

Front 30

segmentation problem

Back 30

-how do we separate sounds into words?
-possible word constraint: we parse words so there are no free agent syllables
-segmentation is either stress based or syllable based depending on language

Front 31

invariance problem(2)

Back 31

phonemes sound different depending on context
-co-articulation effects: shape of vocal apparatus after making one sound

Front 32

dual code theory

Back 32

speech processing uses prelexical (phonetic) and postlexical (phonemic) code

Front 33

dual code theory in experiments (3)

Back 33

phoneme monitoring task: press button when you head a particular sound
Results:
1. words/nonwords similar times
2. Frequency of target words doesn't affect time
3. manipulating semantic context leads to faster time (postlexical)

conclusion: usually respond on prelexical, rarely use postlexical

Front 34

phoneme restoration paradigm

Back 34

-presented w/ incomplete info (ex legis*latures w/ buzz or cough)
- missing phoneme perceptually restored even if participants aware of omission
- importance of semantic information over phonemes

Front 35

three stages of identification

Back 35

1. Initial contact: sensory input makes initial contact w/ lexicon
2. Lexical selection: sensory input accumulars until one entry selected
3. Word recognition: recognition point usualyl occurs before complete word is heard

Front 36

analysis by synthesis model of speech recognition

Back 36

-when we hear speech, we synthesize a succession of articulations in motor unit

Problems: recognizing clearly articulated words that are improbably in context > data driven

Front 37

cohort model of speech recognition (3 stages)

Back 37

-access stage: set up cohort of possible matches
selection stage: items eliminated until there is only one
integration stage: selected word is recognized

Front 38

Experimental tests of Cohort Model (4)

Back 38

Shadowing: speech with erroneous words given, corrected sentence recalled 50% of time >semantic/syntactic analyses start almost instantaneously
-Listening for mispronounciations: more sensitive for ones at beginning of word
-Gatng task: progressively reveal parts of word, faster w/context
-cross modal priming: auditory primed relatives of target

Front 39

Convergence Theory

Back 39

morphology is a graded, inter-level representation that reflects correlations among orthography, phonology, and semantics

Front 40

verb argument structure (subcategorization frame)

Back 40

- the set of possible themes associated with a verb

Front 41

parsing (4 stages)

Back 41

-analyzing the grammatical structure of a sentence
1. determine syntactic category to which each word belongs
2. combine categories to form phrases
3. Determine subject
4. construct representation of meaning of sentence

Front 42

models of parsing (4)

Back 42

autonomous: initial stages only use syntactic info to construct

interactive: other sources (semantic) can influence processing at an early stage

One stage: syntactic + semantic constructs rep. in one shot

Two stage; syntax first, then semantic

Front 43

serial vs. parallel autonomous models of parsing

Back 43

serial: construct syntactic model, decide using semantic information whether it makes sense, repeat if not

parallel: construct all at once, use semantic to choose most appropriate

Front 44

participle

Back 44

a type of verbal phrase where a verb is turned into an adjective by adding –ed or –ing to the verb: “we live in an exciting age”

Front 45

reduced relative

Back 45

a relative clause that has been reduced by removing the relative pronoun and “was” (“The horse raced past the barn fell”).

Front 46

relative clause

Back 46

a clause normally introduced by a relative pronoun that modifies the main noun (“The horse that was raced past the barn fell” –here the relative clause is “that was raced past the barn”).

Front 47

garden path sentences

Back 47

a type of sentence where the syntactic structure leads you to expect a different conclusion from that which it actually has (e.g., “the horse raced past the barn fell”).

Often used in research

Front 48

Complementizer

Back 48

a category of words (e.g. “that”) used to introduce a subordinate clause.

deletion of complementizer can produce misleading result

Front 49

Derivational theory of complexity (DTC)

Back 49

The idea of the derivational theory of complexity is that the more complex the formal syntactic derivation of a sentence – that is, the more transformations that are necessary to form it – the more complex the psychological processing necessary to understand or produce it.

"… transformationally complex sentences should be harder to process than less complex sentences.

Front 50

reversible vs. irreversible passives

Back 50

reversible: can be returned to active and still make sense. Requires work because of ambiguity


irreversible: will not make sense if reversed. Can be determined by syntax alone because it is 'semantically anomalous'

Front 51

Frazier/Fodor sausage machine

Back 51

1. Preliminary Phase Packager(PPP) packages words in parafoveal region (~6) can only use syntactic knowledge

2.Sentence structure supervisor (SSS) assembles packets of PPP but cannot undo work

Front 52

garden path model of parsing

Back 52

1. Processor draws on syntactic information, creates one structure, attachment determined by minimal attachment or late closure, second go if it doesn't mesh w/ themes
2. Thematic information and semantic roles

Front 53

constraint-based model of parsing

Back 53

processor uses multiple sources of info, syntactic, semantic, discourse and frequency, each called a constraint

Front 54

minimal attachment

Back 54

incoming material attached to phrase marker being constructed using fewest nodes possible

interactive model

Front 55

late closure

Back 55

incoming material incorporated into clause currently being processed

Front 56

important ERP markers (2)

Back 56

N400 - violation of semantic expectancy
P600 - violation of syntactic expectancy