Abstract
The three experiments reported in this study were each conducted in two phases. The first phase of Experiment 1 involved a same-different comparison task requiring “same” responses for both mixed-case (e.g., MAIN main) and pure-case (e.g., near near) pairs. This was followed by Phase 2, a surprise recognition test in which a graphemic effect on word retention was indicated by the superior recognition accuracy obtained for pure-case compared with mixed-case pairs. The first phases of Experiments 2 and 3 involved pronounceability and imageability judgment tasks, respectively. Graphemic retention was assessed by contrasting recognition accuracy for letter strings presented, during Phase 2, in their original Phase 1 case, with letter strings presented, during Phase 2, in. a graphemically dissimilar new case. The experiments provided evidence that there was minimal retention of the graphemic representations from which the phonemic representations of words are generated and, further, that the locus of this effect is probably postlexical. Nonwords were recognized more accurately than words in all three experiments. The latter result was attributed to differences between nonwords and words in both graphemic retention and semantic distinctiveness.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baddeley, A, D. The trouble with levels: A reexamination of Cralk and Lockhart’s framework for memory research.Psychological Review, 1978,85, 139–152.
Baron, J. Mechanisms for pronouncing printed words: Use and acquisition. In D. LaBerge & S. J. Samuels (Eds.),Basic processes in reading: Perception and comprehension. New York: Wiley, 1977.
Baron, J. The word-superiority effect: Perceptual learning from reading. In W. K. Estes (Ed.),Handbook of learning and cognitive processes (Vol. 6): Linguistic functions in cognitive theory. New York: Wiley, 1978.
Baron, J., &STRAWSON, C. Use of orthographic and word-specific knowledge in reading words aloud.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1976,2, 386–393.
Barron, R. W., &Pittinger, J.B. The effect of orthographic structure and lexical meaning on “same”-“different” judgments.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974,26, 566–581.
Crair, F. I. M., &Lockhart, R. S. Levels of processing: A framework for memory research.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 1972,11, 671–684.
Craik, F. I. M., &Tulving, E. Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1975,104, 268–294.
Eysenck, M. W. Levels of processing: A critique.British Journal of Psychology, 1978,69, 157–169.
Hock, H. S., Romanski, L., Galie, A., &Williams, C. S. Real-world schemata and scene recogniton:in adults and children.Memory & Cognition, 1978,6, 423–431.
Hunt, R. R., &Elliott, J. M. The role of nonsemantic information in memory: Orthographic distinctiveness effects on retention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1980,109, 49–74.
Kirsner, K. An analysis of the visual component in recognition memory for verbal stimuli.Memory & Cognition, 1973,1, 449–453.
Kolers, P. A. Remembering operations.Memory & Cognition, 1973,1, 347–355.
Kolers, P. A. Two kinds of recognition.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1974,28, 51–60.
Kolers, P. A. Memorial consequences of automatized encoding.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1975,1, 689–701.
Kolers, P. A. Pattern-analyzing memory.Science, 1976,191, 1280–1281.
Kolers, P. A., &Ostry, D. J. Time course of loss of information regarding pattern analyzing operations.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1974,13, 599–612.
LaBerge, D., &Samuels, J. Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading.Cognitive Psychology, 1974,6, 293–323.
Lee, A. T., Tzeng, O., Garro, L. C., &Hung, D. L. Sensory modality and the word frequency effect.Memory & Cognition, 1978,6, 306–311.
Light, L. L., &Berger, D. E. Are there long-term “literal copies” of visually presented words?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1976,2, 654–662.
Mayzner, M. S., &Tresselt, M. E. Tables of single letter and digram frequency counts for various word-length and letter-position combinations.Psychonomic Monograph Supplements, 1965,l(Whole No. 2), 13–78.
Meyer, D. E., Schvaneveldt, R. W., &Ruddy, M. G. Functions of graphemic and phonemic codes in visual word recognition.Memory & Cognition, 1974,2, 309–321.
Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., &Franks, J. J. Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaivor, 1977, 16, 519–533.
Pollatser, A., Well, A. D., &Schindler, R. M. Familiarity affects visual processing of words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1975,1, 328–338.
Scarborough, D. L., Cortese, C., &Scarborough, H. S. Frequency and repetition effects in lexical memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 1977,3, 1–17.
Shulman, H. G., Hornar, R., &Sanders, S. The effects of graphemic, phonetic, and semantic relationships on access to lexical structures.Memory & Cognition, 1978,6, 115–123.
Zechmeister, E. B. Orthographic distinctiveness as a variable in word recognition.American Journal of Psychology, 1972,85, 425–430.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hock, H.S., Throckmorton, B., Webb, E. et al. The effect of phonemic processing on the retention of graphemic representations for words and nonwords. Mem Cogn 9, 461–471 (1981). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202340
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202340