Orthographic-Semantic consistency effects in lexical decision: What types of neighbors are responsible for the Effects?

• An orthographic-semantic consistency effect was observed in lexical decision. • That consistency effect emerged when consistency measures were based on addition neighbors. • We failed to detect a significant consistency effect when consistency measures were based on substitution neighbors. • The effect was largely due to facilitation from morphologically-related neighbors. • The effect was also largely due to inhibition from morphologically-unrelated neighbors. Recent research (e.g., Marelli & Amenta, 2018; Siegelman, Rueckl, Lo, Kearns, Morris & Compton, 2022) has demonstrated a significant orthographic-semantic (O-S) consistency effect on lexical decision performance. Specifically, lexical decision latencies were faster for words with a consistent O-S relationship than for words that do not have a consistent O-S relationship, with consistency being defined in terms of the semantics of those words’ “orthographic neighbors”. Interestingly, however, the words assumed to be orthographic neighbors were different across the studies and, therefore, different factors may have been at work in the two situations. In order to more closely examine the origin of O-S consistency effects in lexical decision tasks, we first attempted to replicate both of those results. Then, we examined O-S consistency effects based on addition (e.g., cats-CAT, pant-PAN), substitution (e.g., cot-CAT, pin-PAN) and deletion (seat-SAT, road-ROD) neighbors separately for mono-morphemic English words in both the datasets used in the previous studies and, based on the former two neighbor types, in a lexical decision experiment. Throughout our data analyses, we observed that addition neighbors play an important role in producing an O-S consistency effect in lexical decision performance. In contrast, we failed to observe a significant O-S consistency effect when consistencies were computed based only on the substitution (or deletion) neighbors. Because addition neighbors involve many morphologically-related neighbors, we further examined the roles that morphologically-related and unrelated neighbors play in producing the O-S consistency effect. Those analyses revealed that the O-S consistency effect for addition neighbors is largely produced by the combination of a processing advantage when a word has many morphologically-related neighbors and a processing disadvantage when a word has many morphologically-unrelated neighbors. More broadly, this research demonstrates that readers pick up on the statistical relationships between spelling and meaning.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Memory and Language
Published
2025-05-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2025.104646
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.29

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Orthographic-Semantic consistency effects in lexical decision: What types of neighbors are responsible for the Effects?

Stephen J. Lupker, Debra Jared, Yasushi Hino
3 citations
Journal of Memory and Language
Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
4.29
article

Orthographic-Semantic consistency effects in lexical decision: What types of neighbors are responsible for the Effects?

Stephen J. Lupker, Debra Jared, Yasushi Hino
article en
3 citations

Abstract

• An orthographic-semantic consistency effect was observed in lexical decision. • That consistency effect emerged when consistency measures were based on addition neighbors. • We failed to detect a significant consistency effect when consistency measures were based on substitution neighbors. • The effect was largely due to facilitation from morphologically-related neighbors. • The effect was also largely due to inhibition from morphologically-unrelated neighbors. Recent research (e.g., Marelli & Amenta, 2018; Siegelman, Rueckl, Lo, Kearns, Morris & Compton, 2022) has demonstrated a significant orthographic-semantic (O-S) consistency effect on lexical decision performance. Specifically, lexical decision latencies were faster for words with a consistent O-S relationship than for words that do not have a consistent O-S relationship, with consistency being defined in terms of the semantics of those words’ “orthographic neighbors”. Interestingly, however, the words assumed to be orthographic neighbors were different across the studies and, therefore, different factors may have been at work in the two situations. In order to more closely examine the origin of O-S consistency effects in lexical decision tasks, we first attempted to replicate both of those results. Then, we examined O-S consistency effects based on addition (e.g., cats-CAT, pant-PAN), substitution (e.g., cot-CAT, pin-PAN) and deletion (seat-SAT, road-ROD) neighbors separately for mono-morphemic English words in both the datasets used in the previous studies and, based on the former two neighbor types, in a lexical decision experiment. Throughout our data analyses, we observed that addition neighbors play an important role in producing an O-S consistency effect in lexical decision performance. In contrast, we failed to observe a significant O-S consistency effect when consistencies were computed based only on the substitution (or deletion) neighbors. Because addition neighbors involve many morphologically-related neighbors, we further examined the roles that morphologically-related and unrelated neighbors play in producing the O-S consistency effect. Those analyses revealed that the O-S consistency effect for addition neighbors is largely produced by the combination of a processing advantage when a word has many morphologically-related neighbors and a processing disadvantage when a word has many morphologically-unrelated neighbors. More broadly, this research demonstrates that readers pick up on the statistical relationships between spelling and meaning.

Journal of Memory and LanguageVol. 143
Western University (CA), Waseda University (JP)
Western University, Waseda University
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
4.29
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.