166 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2522506)
1. Effects of frequency on visual word recognition tasks: where are they?
Monsell S; Doyle MC; Haggard PN
J Exp Psychol Gen; 1989 Mar; 118(1):43-71. PubMed ID: 2522506
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Distinguishing common and task-specific processes in word identification: a matter of some moment?
Andrews S; Heathcote A
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2001 Mar; 27(2):514-44. PubMed ID: 11294447
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Ambiguity and synonymy effects in lexical decision, naming, and semantic categorization tasks: interactions between orthography, phonology, and semantics.
Hino Y; Lupker SJ; Pexman PM
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2002 Jul; 28(4):686-713. PubMed ID: 12109762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The impact of feedback semantics in visual word recognition: number-of-features effects in lexical decision and naming tasks.
Pexman PM; Lupker SJ; Hino Y
Psychon Bull Rev; 2002 Sep; 9(3):542-9. PubMed ID: 12412895
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. [The influence of visualization of orthography on the recognition of written words].
Mathey S
Can J Exp Psychol; 2001 Mar; 55(1):1-23. PubMed ID: 11301725
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Homophone effects in visual word recognition depend on homophone type and task demands.
Kerswell L; Siakaluk PD; Pexman PM; Sears CR; Owen WJ
Can J Exp Psychol; 2007 Dec; 61(4):322-7. PubMed ID: 18266508
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Examining word processing via a megastudy of conditional reading aloud.
Cortese MJ; Yates M; Schock J; Vilks L
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2018 Nov; 71(11):2295-2313. PubMed ID: 30362414
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparing naming, lexical decision, and eye fixation times: word frequency effects and individual differences.
Schilling HH; Rayner K; Chumbley JI
Mem Cognit; 1998 Nov; 26(6):1270-81. PubMed ID: 9847550
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Attentional resource demands of visual word recognition in naming and lexical decisions.
Herdman CM
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 1992 May; 18(2):460-70. PubMed ID: 1593230
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. How strongly do word reading times and lexical decision times correlate? Combining data from eye movement corpora and megastudies.
Kuperman V; Drieghe D; Keuleers E; Brysbaert M
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2013; 66(3):563-80. PubMed ID: 22524868
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Word reading and picture naming in Italian.
Bates E; Burani C; D'Amico S; Barca L
Mem Cognit; 2001 Oct; 29(7):986-99. PubMed ID: 11820758
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. What can we learn from the morphology of Hebrew? A masked-priming investigation of morphological representation.
Frost R; Forster KI; Deutsch A
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 1997 Jul; 23(4):829-56. PubMed ID: 9265076
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Is There an Orthographic Boost for Ambiguous Words During Their Processing?
Haro J; Comesaña M; Ferré P
J Psycholinguist Res; 2019 Apr; 48(2):519-534. PubMed ID: 30478738
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Orthographic neighborhood effects in reading Chinese two-character words.
Huang HW; Lee CY; Tsai JL; Lee CL; Hung DL; Tzeng OJ
Neuroreport; 2006 Jul; 17(10):1061-5. PubMed ID: 16791104
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The Bayesian reader: explaining word recognition as an optimal Bayesian decision process.
Norris D
Psychol Rev; 2006 Apr; 113(2):327-57. PubMed ID: 16637764
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Imageability and age of acquisition effects in disyllabic word recognition.
Cortese MJ; Schock J
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2013; 66(5):946-72. PubMed ID: 23030642
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The attentional control of lexical processing pathways: reversing the word frequency effect.
Balota DA; Law MB; Zevin JD
Mem Cognit; 2000 Oct; 28(7):1081-9. PubMed ID: 11126932
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Orthographic neighborhood effects in perceptual identification and semantic categorization tasks: a test of the multiple read-out model.
Sears CR; Lupker SJ; Hino Y
Percept Psychophys; 1999 Nov; 61(8):1537-54. PubMed ID: 10598468
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Capacity limitations in visual word processing.
Mullin PA; Egeth HE
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 1989 Feb; 15(1):111-23. PubMed ID: 2522521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Lexical familiarity and processing efficiency: individual differences in naming, lexical decision, and semantic categorization.
Lewellen MJ; Goldinger SD; Pisoni DB; Greene BG
J Exp Psychol Gen; 1993 Sep; 122(3):316-30. PubMed ID: 8371087
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
