Search

Reynolds and Besner (2005) examined contextual control over the use of lexical and nonlexical routes by requiring participants to alternate between reading pairs of low-frequency exception words and pairs of nonwords. Their main finding was that latencies for both words (e.g., wad) and nonwords (e.g.,flad) were slower when the immediately preceding trial involved the opposite item type rather than the same item type (a switch cost). The authors interpreted this result as evidence that under certain circumstances, readers have the ability to shift emphasis between their lexical and nonlexical routes. The present research shows that these results can be replicated using Reynolds and Besner's items; however, the switch cost for words, but not for nonwords, disappears when more easily named nonwords are used. This result suggests that Reynolds and Besner's results were likely due to something other than shifting route emphasis.

In the classical Stroop effect, response times for naming the color in which a word is printed are affected by the presence of semantic, phonological, or orthographic relationships between the stimulus word and the response word. We show that color naming responses are faster when the printed word shares a phoneme with the color name to be produced than when it does not, in conditions where there is no semantic relationship between the printed word and the color name. This result is compatible with a variety of computational models of reading. However, we also found that these effects are much larger when it is the first phoneme that the stimulus and response share than when it is the last. Our data are incompatible with computational models of reading in which the computation of phonology from print is purely parallel. The dual route cascaded model computational model of reading, which has a lexical route that operates in parallel and a nonlexical route that operates serially letter by letter, successfully simulates this position-sensitive Stroop effect. The model also successfully simulates the "onset effect" in masked priming (Forster & Davis, 1991) and the interaction between the regularity effect and the position in a word of a grapheme-phoneme irregularity (Rastle & Coltheart, 1999b)--effects which, we argue, arise for the same reason as the position-sensitive Stroop effect we report.