Journal of Memory and Language 45,688–720 (2001)doi:10.1006/jmla.2000.2786, available online at http://www.academicpress.com on

Do Phonological Codes Constrain the Selection of Orthographic Codes in Written Picture Naming?

Patrick Bonin

LAPSCO/CNRS, Université Blaise Pascal, Clermont-Ferrand, France

Ronald Peereman

LEAD/CNRS, Université de Bourgogne, Dijon, France

and

Michel Fayol

LAPSCO/CNRS, Université Blaise Pascal, Clermont-Ferrand, France

Sound-to-print consistency of picture labels was manipulated in five experiments to investigate whether phono-logical codes constrain the selection of orthographic codes in written picture naming. In Experiments 1 and 2,

appingeriment

tten la-vation ofm inac- namefected startsconsis-ting that

opera-

ThforSchFaur4, N5, apictupherhelpof ththeGheCon7–9,

AdBonet Pcal,E-m

participants wrote down picture names which were inconsistent or consistent in the phono-orthographic mdefined either at the level of the word unit, i.e., heterographic homophones versus nonhomophones (Exp1), or at the sublexical level (Experiment 2). In neither experiment did phonographic consistency affect writencies. Although more errors were observed for inconsistent than for consistent picture names, the obsera similar error pattern in an untimed written picture naming (control) task suggests that errors resulted frocurate orthographic knowledge. In Experiment 3, the position of the inconsistent units within the picture(initial versus middle or final) was manipulated. The results indicated that only initial inconsistencies afwritten latencies. Ruling out the hypothesis that this finding merely results from the fact that handwritingbefore the orthographic encoding of the word endings, Experiments 4 and 5 showed that middle or final intencies influenced written latencies in a spelling-to-dictation task. The findings are discussed as suggesthe build-up of orthographic activation from pictures is phonologically constrained through the sequentialtion of sublexical conversion.© 2001 Academic Press

Key Words:phonology; orthography; semantic; written picture naming; spelling to dictation.

68

Any theory of spelling in writing must ac-d

n-

mersns.i-ndse-hispp,actallyto,

e authors thank Crevier Karine and Mirada Catherinerunning Experiments 1 and 3, Ravet Séverine andenckbecher Juliette for running Experiments 2 ande Magalie and Maurice Céline for running Experimeicolas Jarry and Boyer Bruno for running Experimend Stéphane Villatte for running the control writtere naming study. The authors are grateful to ChrisBarry, Debra Jared, and Kathleen Rastle for ve

ful comments on a previous version of this article. Pis research was presented at the XIth Conference

European Society for Cognitive Psychology (ESCOPnt, Belgium, September 1–4, 1999, and at the Writiference 2000 (SIG Writing), Verona, Italy, Septemb2000.dress correspondence and reprint requests to Pa

in, Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale de la Cognitsychologie Cognitive (LAPSCO), Université Blaise Pa34, avenue Carnot, 63037 Clermont-Ferrand, Franail: Patrick.Bonin@srvpsy.univ-bpclermont.fr.

0749-596X/01 $35.008

count for our ability to go from a to-be-nameconcept, e.g.,TABLE, to the actual writing ofthe specific word form associated with the cocept (the letters t-a-b-l-e). More precisely, it hasto specify how orthographic codes which forthe basis for the production of the actual lettare generated from semantic representatioAccording to the obligatory phonological medation hypothesis, access to orthography depeon the prior retrieval of the phonological reprsentations (Geschwind, 1969; Luria, 1970). Thypothesis (Rapp & Caramazza, 1997; RaBenzing, & Caramazza, 1997) reflects the fthat spoken language precedes, ontogeneticand phylogenetically, written language (Scin

3,ntntnto-ry

artof),

nger

trickions-ce.

Copyright © 2001 by Academic PressAll rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

T

n

ei

ah

eui

u

o

vi

m

s

n

e-rit-usege

ta,eli et

ho-ior se- inrdgi-hicthelc-o-hicked,

thertrdd,po-at

ho-heas

tho-o-

heet-hatby to

ithras

al ofyed

WRITTEN PIC

1986). It is consistent both with observationsphonologically based spelling errors (Aitchison & Todd, 1982), such as homophone subtutions (e.g.,there for their) or phonologicallyplausible pseudoword production (e.g.,dirth fordearth) and with our introspective experiencof the inner speech that accompanies writ(Hotopf, 1980). Two different versions of thobligatory phonological mediation hypothescan be distinguished depending on the lexicasublexical nature of the phono-orthographic sociations. According to the lexical version, tsemantic system first activates the target phological form, which, in turn, activates the corrsponding orthographic form (Miceli, BenvegnCapasso, & Caramazza, 1997). The sublexversion, which was the first to be proposed,sumes that writing requires the identificationthe phonemes of the word and their arrangemin the correct order, followed by the recodingeach phoneme into its corresponding graphe(Luria, 1970). However, such a procedure wobe hopelessly inaccurate for English due to ambiguity of phoneme–grapheme correspdences.

The obligatory phonological mediation hypothesis has been challenged by analyses ofious patterns of performance exhibited by bradamaged patients in written and spoken namtasks. First, written performance in picture naing tasks can be relatively spared when copared to spoken performance even thoughdifficulties in spoken production cannot be acribed to the articulatory processes (e.g., AsButtet, & Jolivet, 1981; Bub & Kertesz, 1982Rapp & Caramazza, 1997; Shelton & Weinric1997). Second, some patients exhibit inconstent lexical responses in their written and spken productions in response to the same ptures (e.g., a correct written response andspoken semantic error or the reverse or two dtinct semantic errors as for the spoken respochurch and the written responsepiano to thestimulusorgan1; Miceli et al., 1997; Miceli &Capasso, 1997; Miceli, Capasso, & Caramaz

1999). According to the obligatory phonologica es

n-1 The example is from patient ECA (Miceli, Capasso,

Caramazza, 1999).

URE NAMING 689

of-

sti-

sngeisl ors-e

no--,

calas-ofentofmeld

then-

-ar-

n-ing

-m-thes-al,;h,is-o-ic-

ais-se

za,l

mediation hypothesis, different semantic rsponses for the same trial in spoken versus wten picture naming are not expected becaphonology underlies both forms of languaproduction.

To account for the neuropsychological dathe orthographic autonomy hypothesis (Micet al., 1997; Rapp & Caramazza, 1997; Rappal., 1997) assumes that the retrieval of ortgraphic codes does not obligatorily require praccess to phonology because activation frommantic representations propagates directlyparallel to orthographic and phonological woforms. However, although the neuropsycholocal data mentioned above favor the orthograpautonomy hypothesis, this does not rule out possibility that, in normal writing, phonologicainformation might combine with semantic speifications to constrain the selection of orthgraphic codes. Data favoring the orthograpautonomy hypothesis were observed in maspriming experiments with normals (BoninFayol, & Peereman, 1998). In this technique,visibility of the prime is reduced by using shoprime durations and forward and backwamasking. It was initially used by FerranGrainger, and Segui (1994) to investigate sken picture naming using nonword primes thwere (1) homophonic with the target (pseudomophone primes); (2) nonhomophonic with ttarget, although the orthographic overlap wthe same as for pseudohomophones (orgraphic primes); or (3) nonhomophones orthgraphically and phonologically unrelated to tpicture name with the exception of the first lter(s) (control primes). The results showed tspoken picture naming was facilitated pseudohomophone primes when comparedorthographic primes and control primes, wthe latter two conditions giving rise to similaperformance. Thus, spoken picture naming wfacilitated by the preactivation of phonologicrepresentations, but not by the preactivationorthographic information. In Bonin et al.’s stud(1998), the same priming conditions were usbut participants had to quickly write the namof pictures (a written picture naming task) i

stead of speaking them aloud. Orthographicpriming effects were observed with prime expo-

&

M

h

n

en

o

r

niiwm

i

ayeenh

lo

ga

eooc

n

h

inex-

he

hicdi-lmesyicale-

7;-ingro-im-

ical9).am-re-nd

as or-reateor-tterb-

ho- atub-1, ho- asrdhel ofInklyn a

mor-r-

690 BONIN, PEERE

sure durations of 34 and 51 ms but not witshorter exposure duration of 17 ms. In nonethe experiments did homophony betweprimes and picture names yield an additioadvantage. These findings were interpretedsupport for the hypothesis that orthographicformation is retrieved directly from semanticswritten picture naming.

The goal of the present study was to assfurther whether phonological information costrains orthographic encoding in written pictunaming. In the experiments, the consistencythe mapping between the phonological andthographic units (PO consistency) of pictulabels was manipulated in a written pictunaming task. The main prediction is that incosistencies should hurt performance if phological information contributes to orthographencoding. In order to make clear the specpredictions examined in the experiments,have outlined a model of written picture naing which builds in part on a recent proposalMiceli et al. (1999). This model is depictedFig. 1.

As depicted in Fig. 1, when a target picturepresented, a first processing level consistsobject identification which results in the activtion of structural representations (HumphreLamote, & Lloyd-Jones, 1995). These represtations send activation to the semantic systActivation then flows, in parallel, from sematic representations to phonological and ortgraphic word forms in the (output) phonologcal and orthographic lexicon respectiveFinally, activation propagates from orthgraphic word forms to the grapheme levwhere abstract representations correspondinindividual graphemes and their positionsspecified.

Two different versions of the orthographic atonomy hypothesis were distinguished betwby Miceli et al. (1997). According tthe “lexical” version, phonological and orthgraphic word forms are directly linked to eaother through lexical connections (arrow AFig. 1). The sublexical version holds that phological and orthographic word forms are ndirectly connected to each other, but that t

interact through sublexical connections betwe

AN, AND FAYOL

a ofenal

asin-in

ss-

reofr-

reen-o-cfice-

ofn

isof-s,n-m.-o-i-y.-el

tore

u-en -h

ino-ot ey

phonological and orthographic units (arrow BFig. 1). For instance, consider the to-be pressed concept TABLE. The lexical versionholds that the orthographic word form table isdirectly activated from semantics and from tphonological word form /tεblə/, whereas thesublexical version holds that the orthograpword form is activated from semantics and, inrectly, from the recoding of the individuaphonemes of the phonological word for/tεblə/ into their corresponding graphemt1a1b1l1e. Analyses of errors exhibited bbrain-damaged patients support the sublexversion of the orthographic autonomy hypothsis (Miceli et al., 1997; Miceli & Capasso, 199Miceli et al., 1999). Unlike patients who produce consistent lexical responses when namand writing picture names, the patients who pduce inconsistent responses also manifest pairments of the PO and/or the OP sublexconversion procedures (Miceli et al., 199Hence, inconsistent responses arise when dage to the sublexical conversion procedure pvents interactions between orthographic aphonological word forms.

The primary goal of Experiments 1 and 2 wto investigate whether phonology constraintsthographic code activation in written pictunaming. A secondary goal was to investigwhether the phonological contribution to the thographic encoding of picture names is becharacterized as resulting from lexical or sulexical associations. To that end, phono-ortgraphic (PO) consistency was manipulatedthe lexical level in Experiment 1 and at the slexical level in Experiment 2. In Experiment the picture names were either heterographicmophones or nonhomophones (referred to“controls”) matched for consistency on subwounits. In Experiment 2, the consistency of tpicture names was manipulated at the levesubword units (mostly on the VC or V units). both experiments, participants had to quicwrite down the names of pictures presented ocomputer screen.

Two different predictions can be derived frothe general framework presented above. If thographic and phonological word forms inte

enact directly through lexical connections (arrow

691

dg

m

t

l

d

c-tos

erlec-s,o-ono-

el of written picture naming.

A in Fig. 1), competition for selection betweeorthographic word forms should occur when,it is the case for heterographic homophones,ferent orthographic word forms match a sinphonological word form. Thus, because at letwo orthographic forms are activated but onthe intended one is to be selected, picture nawhich are homophones should yield a proceing cost when compared to control pictunames matched for sublexical consistency. Spose, for instance, that the picture represenswan, which corresponds to the French wocygne. Activation will first propagate, in para

FIG. 1. Working mod

lel, from semantic representations to the phon

nasif-le

astlyes

ss-reup-s ard-

logical word form /siø/ and to the orthographicword form cygne. Because the French worsigneis homophonic with the target word cygne,any subsequent phonological contribution in acessing orthographic specifications will lead the activation of the orthographic word formcorresponding to cygneand signe. As two com-peting orthographic forms are activated, furthprocessing must take place to permit the setion of the intended orthographic form. Thuwritten latencies should be longer for homphonic targets than for controls. This predictiwas tested in Experiment 1. In contrast, if orth

WRITTEN PICTURE NAMING

o-graphic and phonological word forms interact

)uI

oon

cgo

ueonad-enttaskr-c-

aris-otsor

692 BONIN, PEEREM

through sublexical links (arrow B in Fig. 1then a processing cost is expected for pictnames including inconsistent subword units. deed, PO inconsistencies of subword unshould lead, through sublexical conversion,the activation of incorrect alternative orthgraphic codes that will conflict with the orthgraphic activation coming directly from sematics. Hence, if orthographic and phonologicword forms are connected through sublexiassociations, written latencies should be lonfor sublexically inconsistent targets than f

n

htwce ia

i

noro

n

dpo

eine

meted

intentg. Itrsentress ar-are

ectn

therolchifi-

rol.enex-nsedaveionsgsn-

bero-erstu-ores.

essnt

consistent ones. This prediction was examiin Experiment 2.

EXPERIMENT 1: WRITINGHETEROGRAPHIC HOMOPHONES

FROM PICTURES

In Experiment 1, participants wrote dowpicture names that were either heterographicmophones or nonhomophones. To ensure any difference in performance between the tsets of stimuli was not attributable to sublexiconversion, homophones and controls wmatched for phono-orthographic consistencysubword units. If activation of orthographword forms is partially determined by lexicphonology, then homophones should give riselonger written latencies than controls.

In the written picture naming task usedExperiment 1 and in subsequent experimenspelling errors can result either from the seletion of an erroneous orthographic code amocompeting alternatives activated during prcessing (“performance” errors) or from incorect lexical specifications of the word’s orthgraphy (“competence” errors). Therefore,control spelling task was performed to examiwhether spelling errors observed for eachthe sets of stimuli used in the present stuwere better characterized as reflecting “comtence” or “performance” errors. In the contrspelling task, participants had to write dowthe names of the pictures with no time presure. They were instructed to check and, if nessary, correct their responses. After spelleach word, participants had to rate thspelling for confidence on a 5-point scale.

the spelling errors observed in the speed

AN, AND FAYOL

,re

n-itsto---

alalerred

no-

hato

alreoncl to

nts,c-g-

--aeofye-lns-c-g

irIf

written picture naming experiments are trperformance errors resulting from competitibetween alternative orthographic codes, thevantage of consistent items over inconsistones should reduce or disappear when theallows more time for the participants to peform spelling checks and permits error corretion. Indeed, although the prediction of similnumbers of errors for consistent and inconstent items in the control task might be tostrong and omits the fact that participanmight skip the spelling check procedure fsome words, it seems appropriate to assuthat at least some of the errors will be detecand corrected. Consequently, the differenceerror rates between consistent and inconsiswords should be smaller in the untimed writintask than in the speeded writing experimentsfollows, then, that the pattern of spelling erroobserved in each speeded writing experimshould remain significant when the error scoobtained in the control task are introduced acovariate. In contrast, if most of the spelling erors observed in the speeded experimentstrue competence errors, which reflect incorrlexical specifications of word orthography, thethe same pattern of errors should occur inspeeded written picture naming and conttasks. Thus, the consistency effect in easpeeded experiment should become insigncant when the error scores from the contwriting experiment are entered as a covariate

Differences in confidence ratings betweconsistent and inconsistent words are also pected if lexical orthographic representatiofor inconsistent words are less well specifithan for consistent words. Participants who hstored inaccurate orthographic representatmight be accustomed to “erroneous” spellin(especially for inconsistent words) and be uaware of their errors. As a result, they couldrelatively confident about words produced erneously. According to Holmes and Carruth(1998), the more consistently university sdents produce particular misspellings, the mconfident they are in their own productionHowever, participants might, on average, be lconfident about their spellings of inconsiste

edwords because, for some of them at least, they

T

huar

r

s

ieo

o

o

e

th

i

hxi-

es&

n-nd-

et-n-

hedsic

scecylee-stro-desofi-rr-ice,icsremn

s

h&. Aens.i-dheheed

through headphones (Sennheiser HD 25 SP).

WRITTEN PIC

are aware of the uncertainty of their orthgraphic knowledge.

A single independent group of participanperformed the control spelling task for all tsets of stimuli used in Experiment 1 and the ssequent picture naming experiments. For espeeded picture naming experiment, the edata are presented together with the data tained in the control spelling task for the corsponding sets of stimuli.

Method

Participants. Thirty psychology studentfrom Blaise Pascal University (Clermont-Ferand, France) were involved in the experimeAll were native speakers of French and had nmal or corrected-to-normal vision.

Stimuli. The stimuli consisted of 44 linedrawings. For half of them, the picture name ha heterographic homophone of higher frquency. For example, the picture namecygne(meaningswan) and the wordsigne (meaningsign) are heterographic homophones, withsignehaving a higher frequency of occurrence in prthan cygne. For each picture name, the corrsponding orthographic code was of lowmedium frequency in print (less than 90 occurences per million according to Imbs, 1971The 22 pictures of the homophone conditiwere matched with 22 control pictures for whicthe picture names had no heterographic homphone. Hence, items in the control conditiwere consistent at the lexical level of the Pcorrespondences (whole-word level). Howevby definition, the heterographic homophoncarry sound-to-print inconsistencies both atlexical and sublexical levels. For example, tPO correspondences between the phonologand the orthographic codes of the wordscygneandsigneare inconsistent at the sublexical levsince each of the/s/ and /i/ phonological codeshave two distinct orthographic renderings (c ands, y andi, respectively). Because the experimefocused on the phonology-to-orthographyconsistencies at the lexical level, picture namin the homophone and control conditions wematched for sublexical inconsistencies. Tmatching was performed using the LEXOP le

cal database, which includes detailed lexic

URE NAMING 693

o-

tseb-ch

rorob-e-

r-nt.or-

ade-

nt-rr-).nho-nOr,

eshee

ical

el

ntn-esree

statistics on sound-to-print correspondencfor French monosyllabic words (PeeremanContent, 1999).

Ideally, heterographic homophones and cotrols should be matched for both the spoken awritten frequencies of the picture names. However, such a matching is impossible where herographic and nonheterographic words are cocerned. In the case of heterographic words, tspoken frequency of the word form corresponto the pooled frequencies of the homophonforms (e.g., the summed frequency ofcygneandsigne), but the written frequency is specific tothe orthographic form of one of the homophone(e.g., cygne). Therefore, the nonheterographicontrols consisted of line drawings whosnames were matched for the written frequenof the orthographic forms. Note that the possibadvantage afforded by the higher spoken frquency of the heterographic items works againthe expected disadvantage related to hetegraphy. In addition to word frequency ansound-to-print consistency, the picture namwere matched as far as possible for numberletters and bigram frequencies. The phonologcal forms of the picture label were matched fonumber of phonemes. The orthographic similaity between the members of the homophonpairs was relatively high (.62 according to thorthographic similarity index of Van Orden1987). The average picture name characteristare presented in Table 1. Fifteen pictures weused as warm-ups. The pictures were taken froSnodgrass and Vanderwart (1980), childrebooks (Père Castor), a dictionary (Larousse),and various clip-art libraries. The picture nameare listed in Appendix 1.

Apparatus. The experiment was created witPsyScope (Cohen, MacWhinney, Flatt,Provost, 1993) and ran on a PowerMacintoshgraphic tablet (Wacom tablet) and a contact p(UP-401) were used to record written latencie

Procedure. The participants were tested indvidually. During a preliminary phase, they hato learn the name associated with each of tpictures. Each picture was presented on tscreen while its name was auditorily present

alThe picture remained on the screen until the

ticer

atiote

cba

u

sestcnret4ld

ntsteted

om-

i-ct-

As

e.seteheedr

heg.ial

r- to all 3in

r aal-so a

unconfident(1).

From Content and Radeau (1988).cValues by Type (by Token in parentheses) as given by LEXOP (Peereman & Content, 1999).

2 This delay was determined on the basis of previous ex-

participant pressed the spacebar. The parpants were told to look carefully at each piture to learn its name and then, when they fthey knew its name, to press the spacebaproceed to the next picture. The time takenlearn each picture together with its name wmeasured and recorded. To ensure that parpants had correctly learned the names assated with the pictures, the experimenter testhem on several pictures selected randomThe learning times were analyzed for easpeeded written picture naming experimentthey did not provide supplementary informtion with regard to the pattern of results founin each experiment. For this reason, the resfrom the learning phases are not reported. Trationale for conducting this learning phawas that our production experiments requirthe selection of specific measurable responand in production there is often no easy wayget specific responses (Bock, 1996). Hen“specified elicitation” is frequently used ispoken picture naming studies in order toduce variability in the names used to referthe pictures (e.g., Jescheniak & Levelt, 199Schriefers, Meyer, & Levelt, 1990; Starreve& La Heij, 1995).

In the experimental phase, the participawere instructed that they had to quickly wridown the name of each of the pictures presenon the screen. The distance between the c

puter screen and the participant was about

ci--ltto

tosci-ci-d

ly.hut-dltsheedes,oe,

-o;

cm. The experimenter monitored the particpants’ responses and scored them for correness. The entire session lasted about 60 min.

Each trial consisted of the following events:ready signal (“*”) was presented for 1000 mfollowed, after a 200-ms delay, by the picturLatencies were measured from picture onuntil the initiation of the written response. Thparticipants sat with the stylus right above ttablet so that the latency was the time requirto make the initial contact with the tablet aftepicture onset. The picture was removed from tscreen after the participant had initiated writinThe next trial was presented after an intertrinterval of 5000 ms.2 The experiment beganwith 15 practice trials.

In the spelling control task, 30 additional paticipants, all native speakers of French, hadwrite down the names of pictures dispayed byslide projector while hearing their names. Athe pictures used in Experiments 1, 2, andwere presented. Participants were tested groups of 10. Each picture was presented foperiod of 10 to 15 s and participants were lowed to correct their spellings. They were alasked to rate their spellings for confidence on5-point scale ranging from very confident(5) to

694 BONIN, PEEREMAN, AND FAYOL

TABLE 1

Characteristics of the Picture Names Used in Experiment 1

Homophones Non-homophones p Values (t tests)

Number of letters 4.27 4.27 nsNumber of phonemes 2.86 2.82 ns

Log frequencya 1.08 1.14 ns

Log bigram frequencyb 3.21 2.87 ,.01Onset (C1) consistencyc 0.91 (0.88) 0.95 (0.95) ns(ns)

Vowel (V) consistencyc 0.53 (0.55) 0.60 (0.58) ns(ns)

Coda (C2) consistencyc 0.45 (0.47) 0.46 (0.51) ns(ns)

C1V consistencyc 0.51 (0.45) 0.61 (0.59) ns(ns)VC2 consistencyc 0.19 (0.13) 0.27 (0.23) ns(ns)

aLog word Frequency per 100 million from Imbs (1971).b

60periments (Bonin & Fayol, 2000; Bonin, Fayol, & Gombert,1997, 1998; Bonin, Fayol, & Peereman, 1998).

T

ri-

ruea2anatth

e3

ieo

faiteaae

goedonea

ont

thrtesff

leiontoen

ors the

o-ain-es theand

%).

ors%)

as aeri-ord

tlyolsrat-

lsanorsatub-e

ve-

WRITTEN PIC

Results

In Experiment 1, as in the following expements, observations were discarded from thetency analyses when the participant did notmember the picture name or used a pictname other than the expected one, when a tnical problem occurred, or when a word wmisspelled. Moreover, latencies exceedingstandard deviations above the participantitem means were discarded (0.98% of the dand considered as errors. Overall, 10.6% ofdata were excluded. One item (puits meaningwell) was removed from the latency analysdue to a high error rate (22 participants ofwrote it erroneously).

Analyses were performed on written latencand on errors with Homophony condition (hmophonic labels; control labels) as the main tor. ANOVAs were conducted separately wparticipants and items as random factors. Mlatencies were 1219 ms for homophones 1230 ms for controls. The 11-ms difference wnot reliable, both F , 1, and the trend was in thdirection opposite to the expected effect.3

In this experiment as well as in the followinones, three different kinds of analyses were cducted on the errors: (1) all error types includ(2) spelling errors and homophone substitutionly; and (3) spelling errors only. All thesanalyses were carried out either with items hing an error rate greater than 50% removedwith the whole set of items. For the sake of cciseness, only the analyses performed onwhole set of errors and corresponding toitems used in the latency analyses are repofor each experiment, except when the differanalyses led to different outcomes. In such cathe other analyses are also presented. The eof homophony was significant,F1(1, 29) 524.63,MSE5 .0069248,p , .001;F2(1, 41)5

11.67,MSE5 .0104668,p , .01, with homo-phonic labels causing more errors (14.6%) tha y,

ase-its

m-

3 An additional analysis using log bigram frequency ascovariate was carried out because we were concerned tthe higher frequency of bigram units (by token counts) fohomophones than for nonhomophones might have weakenthe expected homophone effect. The results did not revesignificant effects of bigram frequency and homophony.

URE NAMING 695

la-e-rech-s.5d

a)e

s0

s-c-hannds

n-;s

v-or-heeedntes,ect

n

controls (3.9%). The effect was also reliabwhen both spelling and homophone substituterrors were counted as errors, but it failedreach significance in the by-item analysis whonly spelling errors were considered,F1(1, 29)5 5.22,MSE5 .0011757,p 5 .05;F2(1, 41)51.31,MSE5 .0032527,p 5 .25.

A qualitative analysis performed on the erron homophonic labels revealed that most oferrors were spelling errors (34.78%) and homphone substitution errors (44.57%). The reming errors corresponded to cutoff valu(5.43%), responses using a label other thanintended one (9.78%), no response (3.26%),spelling corrections by the participants (2.17

Untimed Written Picture Naming Task. Morespelling and homophone substitution errwere observed for the homophonic labels (15than for the control labels (1.81%),F1(1, 29) 575.66,MSE5 .0034447,p , .001; F2(1, 42) 510.11, MSE 5 .0189141,p , .01. When theerror data from the control task were used covariate in the analysis of the errors of Expment 1, the difference between the two wsets no longer reached significance.

Homophonic labels were given a slighlower confidence score (4.73) than contr(4.88). The homophony effect on confidenceings was significant by participants,F1(1, 29)519,MSE5 .0181201,p , .001, and marginallysignificant by items,F2(1, 42) 5 3.36,MSE5.0751130,p 5 .073.

Discussion

Contrary to the prediction, control labewere not produced significantly faster thhomophonic labels, although an effect on errwas observed. An important finding was thnumerous errors consisted of homophone sstitutions. At first, this observation could binterpreted as evidence of phonological involment in written picture naming. Accordinglthe phonological word form corresponding tohomophonic target would be activated frommantics and activation would then spread todifferent related orthographic forms. For exaple, the conceptverre (meaningglass) would

ahatred

activate the phonological word form/vεr/which, in turn, would activate the orthographical

M

n

is-

nnesno

nmt

t

to

tn

e

de

ter

e

eEo

e

af

ldInat

r-of

sublexical inconsistencies for both latencies

S

Oectis-ed.cyw-dsnes,91;rit-w-ionlexi-y-er-lyg

rdthermO

useisreore

on-rdcew-

ts re-theers

696 BONIN, PEERE

word forms verre, vers, and ver. Such errorsmight reflect true “performance” errors awould follow from erroneous selection of thnonintended orthographic form. One problewith this hypothesis is that it is unclear whwritten latencies were not affected by constency. It might be that our decision to considvery long latencies as errors led to the elimition of latency differences between homophoand controls. However, the percentage ofcluded items did not statistically differ acroconditions (0.79 and 1.21% for the homophoand controls, respectively) and the homopheffect was still nonsignificant when these velong responses were included in the lateanalyses (1241 versus 1265 ms for the hophones and controls respectively). Finally,fact that similar patterns of spelling and homphone substitution errors were observed inspeeded writing task and the control writing tasuggests that most of the errors on inconsiswords were competence errors resulting frinaccurate orthographic knowledge. Therefothe differences in error rates between consisand inconsistent words in Experiment 1 canbe readily taken as evidence of phonologicalvolvement in written picture naming.

The apparent lack of competion betwehomophones during processing seems to ctrast with recent findings for visual worrecognition. One possibility is that the frquency of the homophone mates was not henough as compared to the frequency oftarget homophones to truly compete for seltion. Indeed, Pexman, Lupker, and Ja(2001) found that, in lexical decision, thhomophone effect was retricted to low-frquency homophones having high-frequenmates. A close examination of our stimuli rvealed, however, that this was the case inperiment 1, with the frequency of the homphone mates being higher and statisticadifferent (p , .001) from the frequency of thhomophone targets (log frequency of 2.33 a1.08 respectively). Another possibility is ththe failure to observe a homophony effectwritten latencies results from the fact that h

mophones and controls were matched for sulexical inconsistencies. Hence, similar interfe

AN, AND FAYOL

demy

ences in orthographic code selection couhave occurred for both categories of items.Experiment 2, PO consistency was definedthe sublexical level. If this explanation is corect, we should observe significant effects

era-esx-sesnerycyo-

heo-heskentmre,entot

in-

non-

-ighhec-

ede-cy-x--

lly

ndt

oro-

and errors in Experiment 2.

EXPERIMENT 2: WRITINGSUBLEXICALLY CONSISTENT AND

INCONSISTENT WORDS FROM PICTURE

In Experiment 2, we examined whether Pinconsistencies at the sublexical level affwritten performance. In addition to the constency factor, word frequency was manipulatIn the word recognition literature, consisteneffects are more easily obtained on lofrequency words than high-frequency wor(Seidenberg, 1985; Seidenberg, Waters, Bar& Tanenhaus, 1984; but see Content, 19Jared, 1997). Thus, consistency effects in wten picture naming could be confined to lofrequency picture names. Such a predictmakes sense because, according to the subcal version of the orthographic autonomy hpothesis, the phonology-to-orthography convsion procedure is assumed to act slow(Miceli, personal communication) and to labehind the activation of phonological woforms. For high-frequency picture names,selection of the appropriate orthographic focould occur before the involvement of the Pconversion procedure. Conversely, becaactivation of the orthographic word formslower for low than for high-frequency pictunames, the PO conversion should have mtime to develop and could consequently cstrain the selection of orthographic woforms. Hence, consistency should influenboth latencies and errors, especially for lofrequency picture names.

Method

Participants. Thirty psychology studenfrom the same pool as Experiment 1 werecruited. None of them had participated in previous experiment. All were native speak

b-r-of French and had normal or corrected-to-nor-mal vision.

T

oe

i

to

t

g

oe

o7

ofve-lysoura-ntr-

d-soins-al-edd

ter-di-ic-inin

WRITTEN PIC

Stimuli. Eighty line drawings were used. Fhalf of them, the picture name was a frequword, whereas for the remaining half it waslow-frequency word. Of the low- and high-frequency items, half were sublexically inconstent and half were consistent.

As in the previous experiment, the itemwere selected from the LEXOP lexical databa(Peereman & Content, 1999). In Experimenand in the following experiments, sound-tprint consistency was defined at the level of tonset, vocalic, and coda units, as well as atlevel of onset1vowel and vowel1coda (rime)units. Manipulation of consistency involvinlarger units rather than the phoneme–graphecorrespondences was preferred for two reasoFirst, there are several instances in Frenin which the inconsistency of phoneme-tgrapheme relations decreases or disappwhen the adjacent context is taken into accouFor example, the phoneme/k/ has multipleorthographic renderings (qu, c, k, and ch) butconsistency is nearly maximal when thphoneme/k/ is followed by /R/ as in the word“crime” (“ Christian” and “krypton” are two ex-ceptions). In other cases, positional informatiis also critical. For example, Tainturier (199mentioned the case of the French vowel/O/,which is generally transcribed with “o” (as in

the word “moto”) except when occurring at the

From Content and Radeau (1988).cValues by Type (by Token in parentheses) as given by

URE NAMING 697

rnt

a-s-

sse2-

hehe

mens.ch-arsnt.

e

n)

graphemes are very usual (as in “râteau”).Thus, defining consistency on the basisphoneme–grapheme associations might haresulted in the inclusion of words that are inconsistent at the phoneme level, but are highconsistent when the adjacent context is alconsidered. A second reason motivating opreference for considering contextual informtion when selecting consistent and inconsistewords is that recent data (Pacton, Fayol, & Peruchet, 2001) clearly indicate that the surrouning context of a phoneme partially determinethe way children spell nonwords (see alsPacton, Perruchet, Fayol, & Cleeremans,press). In Experiment 2, most of the inconsitencies occurred on the vowel (V) and the finvowel-consonant (VC rime) units. Among highand low-frequency words, labels were matchas far as possible for number of letters anphonemes. The average picture name characistics are presented in Table 2. Sixteen adtional pictures were used as warm-ups. The ptures were taken from the same pool asExperiment 1. The picture names are listedAppendix 2.

Apparatus and procedure. These were identi-cal to those used in Experiment 1.

Results

As in Experiment 1, latencies above 2.5 stan-m

word final where the “au” and “eau” dard deviations from the participant and ite

TABLE 2

Characteristics of the Picture Names Used in Experiment 2

HF-Inc HF-Con p Values LF-Inc LF-Con p Values(t tests) (t tests)

Number of letters 4.95 4.95 4.95 4.95Number of phonemes 3.30 3.90 .06 3.50 3.60 ns

Log frequencya 3.88 3.90 ns 2.65 2.63 ns

Log bigram frequencyb 3.15 2.94 ,.05 3.06 2.82 ,.01Onset (C1) consistencyc 0.94 (0.92) 0.96 (0.95) ns(ns) 0.71 (0.70) 0.96 (0.97) ,.05 (5.01)Vowel (V) consistencyc 0.47 (0.48) 0.91 (0.97) ,.01 (,.01) 0.49 (0.44) 0.91 (0.98) ,.01 (,.01)Coda (C2) consistencyc 0.57 (0.57) 0.86 (0.94) ,.01 (,.01) 0.68 (0.60) 0.85 (0.93) ns(,.01)C1V consistencyc 0.54 (0.63) 0.91 (0.96) ,.01 (,.01) 0.42 (0.33) 0.85 (0.88) ,.01 (,.01)VC2 consistencyc 0.34 (0.34) 0.82 (0.93) ,.01 (,.01) 0.46 (0.34) 0.90 (0.96) ,.01 (,.01)

Note. HF 5 high frequency words; LF 5 low frequency words; Con 5 Consistent; Inc 5 Inconsistent.aLog word Frequency per 100 million from Imbs (1971).b

LEXOP (Peereman & Content, 1999).

rrHn

hem

o

yisaew

-

l

tdv

o

fr

r

tre

nts

en

etre

ac-is-ledg-i-ig-r

c-

-ornt:t:

eri-tas

e-

698 BONIN, PEEREM

means were excluded and considered as e(0.67–1.16% for consistent and inconsistent words respectively; 1–0.98% for consistent ainconsistent LF words). Overall, 7.25% of tdata were excluded from the latency analysMoreover, in the latency analyses, three ite(“hyène,” “ seau,” and “serpe”) were discardedbecause more than half the participants wrthem incorrectly.

ANOVAs were conducted with Frequenc(high frequency vs low frequency) and Constency (consistent vs inconsistent) as main ftors. As Table 3 shows, written responses wfaster for high-frequency names than for lofrequency names,F1(1, 29) 5 50.76,MSE 51762.44,p , .001;F2(1, 73)5 10.24,MSE55707.61,p , .01. The main effect of consistency was not reliable, bothF , 1. The inter-action between the two factors was marginasignificant by participants,F1(1, 29) 5 3.48,MSE 5 1545.35,p 5 .072, but not significanby items,F2 , 1. Similar results were obtainewhen latencies exceeding 2.5 standard detions were included in the latency analyses.4

In the error analyses, the main effectfrequency was significant,F1(1, 29) 5 22.31,MSE5 .0026166,p , .001;F2(1, 73)5 10.08,MSE5 .0036999,p , .01. The main effect oconsistency was marginally significant by paticipants,F1(1, 29) 5 3.53, MSE 5 .0036711,p 5 .07, and failed to reach significance bitems,F2(1, 73)5 2.24,MSE5 .0036999,p 5.14. The interaction between the two factowas not significant in both analyses, bothF ,1. When only spelling and homophonic substution errors were considered, the effects of fquency,F1(1, 29) 5 17.94,MSE 5 .0013102,p , .001;F2(1, 73)5 12.66,MSE5 .0011855,p , .001, and of consistency,F1(1, 29) 510.96,MSE5 .0012446,p , .01; F2(1, 73)57.35,MSE5 .0011855,p , .01, were signifi-cant. The interaction between frequency aconsistency was significant by participan

F1(1, 29) 5 4.68, MSE 5 .0013761,p , .05, 1)

n-s-4 As in Experiment 1, an additional analysis using bigra

frequency as a covariate was performed because the sestimuli were not perfectly matched for bigram frequencThe pattern of results remained the same.

AN, AND FAYOL

orsFd

es.s

te

-c-re-

ly

ia-

f

-

y

s

i--

d,

and marginally significant by items,F2(1,73) 5 3.47,MSE5 .0011855,p 5 .07 (exactlythe same pattern of results was obtained whspelling errors only were considered).

When errors were analyzed with the full sof items, frequency and consistency effects wesignificant on both analyses as was the intertion effect between the frequency and constency factors. Planned comparisons reveathat the consistency effect was marginally sinificant for high-frequency names by particpants and not significant by items, but it was snificant by both participants and items folow-frequency names.

Untimed written picture naming task. Theeffects of frequency,F1(1, 29)5 37.06,MSE5.0036789,p , .001;F2(1, 76)5 12.75,MSE5.0064403,p, .001, and consistency,F1(1, 29)545.99,MSE5 .0028196,p , .001;F2(1, 76)512.09,MSE5 .0064403,p , .001, were signifi-cant, as was the interaction between the two fators,F1(1, 29)5 43.04,MSE5 .0028619,p ,.001;F2(1, 76)5 11.46,MSE5 .0064403,p ,.01. More errors were observed for low-frequency inconsistent words (13.31%) than fthe other categories of targets (HF-Consiste0%; HF-Inconsistent: 0.16%; LF-Consisten0.33%),F1(1, 29) 5 42.85,MSE 5 .0090788,p , .001;F2(1, 76)5 36.29,MSE5 .0064403,p , .001. As was the case in Experiment 1, thdifferences between the sets of stimuli in Expement 2 were not significant when the error dafrom the untimed writing task were entered acovariates in the error analysis.

Confidence ratings were affected by both frquency,F1(1, 29) 5 31.07,MSE 5 .0207644,p , .001;F2(1, 76)5 10.69,MSE5 .0402500,p , .01, and consistency,F1(1, 29) 5 34.36,MSE5 .0140057,p , .001;F2(1, 76)5 7.97,MSE5 .0402500,p , .01. The interaction ef-fect was significant,F1(1, 29)5 35.74,MSE5.0138247,p , .001;F2(1, 76)5 8.18,MSE5.0402500,p , .01. A slightly lower confidencescore was given to LF-Inconsistent items (4.7than to the other categories of items (HF-Cosistent: 4.99; HF-Inconsistent: 4.99; LF-Consitent: 4.97),F1(1, 29)5 35.13,MSE5 .045919,p , .001;F (1, 76)5 26.72,MSE5 .040250,

mts of

2

p , .001.y.

o sd

h

v

ig

f

ein

t

x,8;8;-c-ar-hensly.er

ase-

ikeso-eotut

ro-nhatc-

ë,tsx-at

vegar-at-chef-

e-

1102.9 (4.0) 1092.0 (2.3) 1144.2 (8.82) 1160.0 (6.3)

Discussion

Experiment 2 failed to show longer writtelatencies for sublexically inconsistent itemthan for consistent ones. Although the constency effect was not significant when all errtypes were included, consistency had a clearfect when only spelling and homophone subtutions were considered. As mentioned unExperiment 1, the more numerous spelling ahomophonic substitution errors on inconsisteitems might result from the inaccurate lexicspecification of orthographic forms since tcontrol written picture naming task showedsimilar pattern of spelling and homophonic sustitution errors.

Hence, as far as written latencies are cocerned, Experiments 1 and 2 do not provide edence for the hypothesis that phonologiccodes can constrain the selection of orthgraphic codes by means of lexical (Experime1) or sublexical links (Experiment 2). It is possble, however, that participants initiate writinas soon as the first letter or the first graphemethe to-be-written target becomes availableoutput. Given that most inconsistencies wecarried out by the final part of the items (V oVC), the lack of a consistency effect on latencicould be due to the fact that the resolution ofconsistencies took place during the actual phycal production of the first letters or graphemeThe processing cost associated with this resotion process would therefore remain undetec

WRITTEN PICTURE NAMING 699

TABLE 3

Mean Latencies (in Milliseconds) and Percentages of Errors for Sublexically Consistent and Inconsistent Picture Names in Experiment 2

High-frequency names Low-frequency names

Inconsistent Consistent Inconsistent Consistent

h

io

or-s

alenng

in an analysis of the written onset latencies. Tnext experiment addressed this issue.

EXPERIMENT 3: MANIPULATING THE SERIAL POSITION OF THE

INCONSISTENT UNITS

It has been claimed that speech product

can be initiated before the full phonologica

nsis-ref-ti-erndntalea

b-

n-i-

alo-nt-

oforrers-

si-s.lu-ede

n

encoding of the word (Bachoud-Lévi, DupouCohen, & Mehler, 1998; Cortese, 199Kawamoto, Kello, Jones, & Bame, 199Schriefers & Teruel, 1999). Although this hypothesis was not confirmed by the eletropalatographic study reported by Rastle, Hrington, Coltheart and Palethorpe (2000), tpossibility of a similar assumption for writteproductions needs to be considered seriouIndeed, first written responses are even slowthan spoken ones, and it might thus be the cthat handwriting starts before the full orthographic encoding of the target. Second, unlconsonants which cannot be pronounced in ilation, letters can be written in isolation. Ware not claiming that complex relations do nexist between letters in written productions, bthat individual segments are more easily pduced in isolation in written than in spokeproductions. In fact, there is some evidence tlinguistic processes are involved during the atual handwriting movements (Orliaguet & Bo1993) as well as during typing movemen(Gentner, Larochelle, & Grudin, 1988). For eample, Orliguet and Boë (1993) showed thapplying grammatical rules in order to resolspelling uncertainties had an effect on writinexecution. Hence, it seems plausible that pticipants initiate writing as soon as a stable ptern of activation over word-initial orthographiunits is attained. This hypothesis leads to tprediction that written latencies should be afected when words are initially inconsistent bcause it takes longer to reach stability overthographic units for initially inconsistent wordthan for consistent words.

A different hypothesis is that the sublexicPO conversion procedure underlying writtproduction proceeds sequentially. Followi

lJared and Seidenberg’s (1990) finding, it has

h

nn

t

a

ne

g

s

l

o

ntl-sler

lOlly.n-r

n

theof..nt

es-e,g

onlithes-i-offter-ed

ol in

ve

700 BONIN, PEEREM

been observed that, in printed word naminearly orthography-to-phonology inconsistenciare more damaging to reading performance tlate inconsistencies (Coltheart & Rastle, 199Content, 1991; Content & Peereman, 199Cortese, 1998; Rastle & Coltheart, 1999). Theresults have been accounted for by assumthat grapheme-to-phoneme corresponderules are applied sequentially, from left to rig(but see, for example, Ans, Carbonnel, & Vadois, 1998; Plaut, McClelland, Seidenberg,Patterson, 1996, for alternative interpretationThe variation of the consistency effect as a fution of the serial position of the inconsistent uwas attributed to the fact that, as time proceethe phonological code of the word has a bechance of being lexically addressed so thacan drive naming. Similarly, in written production, the sublexical conversion of phonologicto orthographic units might operate sequentiaAs a result, only initial phonological unitwould have time to be converted into orthgraphic codes before response production,consistency would affect written productioonly in the case of initial inconsistent units. Ideed, in such a case a conflict arises becaussublexical process and the “semantic–lexicprocedure lead to the activation of incongrueorthographic codes. For example, for the tarphoque(/fɔk/), the semantic–lexical procedurwill support the correct ph grapheme, whereathe f grapheme will be activated through subleical conversion since it corresponds to the mfrequent orthographic rendering of /f/. As thisconflict must be resolved before writing beginwritten latencies should be longer for initialinconsistent targets than for consistent onesthe case of word-final inconsistencies, as themantic constraints develop over time, the crect orthographic pattern of activation will bsettled before completion of the sublexical coversion procedure. Consequently, the respowill occur before sublexical conversion of thfinal inconsistent units.

In Experiment 3, the picture names weeither mostly inconsistent on their initial pa(initial consonant or vowel) or mostly inconsis

tent on their middle or final part (vowel ovowel-consonant units). Each type of inconsi

AN, AND FAYOL

g,esan4;2;seingncehtl-&s).c-itds,tert it-allly.so-nd

n- the

al”ntet

e

x-ost

s,y. Inse-r-en-nsee

rert-

tent item was compared to sets of consisteitems (referred to as control items in the folowing). If handwriting movements can start asoon as the first part of the target is availabfor output, written latencies should be longefor initially inconsistent items than for controitems. The same prediction holds if the Pconversion procedure operates sequentiaConversely, both hypotheses predict that cosistency should not affect written latencies fomiddle or final inconsistent items (as found iExperiment 2).

Method

Participants. Thirty-six psychology under-graduate students from the same pool as in previous experiments were involved. None them participated in the previous experiments

Stimuli. Ninety-two line drawings were usedTwenty-three picture names were inconsisteon their initial part (on the onset, theonset1vowel, or the initial vowel units, seeTable 4 for the detailed characteristics of thstimuli). They were matched as closely as posible with twenty-three control items on thinitial letter or letter stroke, number of lettersnumber of phonemes, number of syllables, lofrequency, and bigram frequency.

Twenty-three picture names inconsistent their middle or final part, but not on their initiapart, were matched as closely as possible wan additional set of 23 consistent picture namfor initial letter or letter stroke, number of letters, number of syllables, log frequency, and bgram frequency. However, these two sets items differed significantly on the number ophonemes. The average picture name characistics appear in Table 4. Eight pictures not usas stimuli served as warm-ups.

The pictures were taken from the same poas Experiment 1. The picture names are listedAppendix 3.

Apparatus and procedure. These were identi-cal to Experiment 1.

Results

As in the previous experiments, data abo

rs-2.5 standard deviations from the participant anditem means were discarded from the latency

c

d

n

i

ionts,

thers,

h

as

-r-

From Content and Radeau (1988).cValues by type (by token in parentheses) as given by LEXOP (Peereman & Content, 1999).

analyses (1.17% of the data). Two items (“puits”and “luth”) were also discarded from the latenanalyses due to a high error rate. Overall, 9.2of the data were excluded from the latenanalyses. For the error analyses, the criteriafined in the previous experiments were applie

The ANOVAs were performed with WorType (inconsistent vs consistent) and Posit(initial vs final) as factors. Mean latencies aerror rates are presented in Table 5.

For the latency data, the main effect of Potion was significant by both participants aitems,F1(1, 35) 5 22.67,MSE5 6146.47,p ,.001; F2(1, 86) 5 10.07,MSE5 7608.46,p ,.01. The main effect of Word Type was signcant by participants,F1(1, 35) 5 25.52,MSE52002.61,p , .001, and marginally significan

1229.4 (12.9) 1153.1 (4.3)

y4%cyde-d.

ionnd

si-d

fi-

t

p 5 .073. Also, the interaction between Positand Word Type was significant by participanF1(1, 35) 5 15.21,MSE5 3519.917,p , .001,and marginally significant by items,F2(1, 86) 53.24,MSE5 7608.46,p 5 .075. More impor-tantly, planned comparisons revealed that consistency effect (176 ms) was significant foboth participants and items for initial itemF1(1, 35) 5 30.45,MSE5 3436.60,p , .001;F2(1, 86) 5 6.68,MSE5 7608.46,p , .05, andvirtually absent (21 ms) for final items, botF , 1.

For errors, the main effect of Position wsignificant by participants only,F1(1, 35) 56.95, MSE 5 .0017160,p , .05; F2(1, 86) 51.11,MSE5 .0066731,p 5 .29. The main effect of Word Type was significant by both pa

WRITTEN PICTURE NAMING 701

TABLE 4

Characteristics of the Picture Names Used in Experiment 3

Initial inconsistencies Final inconsistencies

p Values p ValuesInconsistent Control (t tests) Inconsistent Control (t tests)

Number of letters 5.22 5.26 ns 4.96 5.22 ns

Number of phonemes 3.74 4.26 ns 3.17 3.87 ,.01Number of syllables 1.39 1.39 ns 1.04 1.04 ns

Log frequencya 2.87 2.98 ns 3.12 3.00 ns

Bigram frequencyb 1107.39 994.39 ns 1046.60 1092.90 ns

Onset (C1) 0.17 0.94 ,.01 0.98 0.97 nsconsistencyc (0.23) (0.88) (,.01) (0.99) (0.97) (ns)

Vowel (V) 0.59 0.91 ,.01 0.46 0.92 ,.01consistencyc (0.61) (0.96) (,.01) (0.44) (0.98) (,.01)

Coda (C2) 0.65 0.83 0.09 0.53 0.86 ,.01consistencyc (0.64) (0.92) (,.05) (0.52) (0.90) (,.01)

C1V consistencyc 0.26 (0.26) 0.82 (0.82) ,.01 (,.01) 0.57 (0.56) 0.89 (0.91) ,.01 (,.01)VC2 consistencyc 0.39 (0.33) 0.83 (0.93) ,.01 (,.01) 0.27 (0.22) 0.92 (0.98) ,.01 (,.01)

aLog word frequency per 100 million from Imbs (1971).b

by items,F2(1, 86) 5 3.28, MSE 5 7608.46, ticipants and items,F1(1, 35)5 35.72,MSE5

TABLE 5

Mean Latencies (in Milliseconds) and Percentages of Errors as a Function of Consistency and Position of the Inconsistency (Experiment 3)

Initial position Final position

Inconsistent Consistent Inconsistent Consistent

1128.6 (9.5) 1129.5 (4.1)

n

s

l

i

oi-

o

i

fi-ls

s-ofrit-ncy in-ltsionatn-n-ng.of in-le

or final inconsistencies did not affect written

3cyCtec-of

the.g.,rg, ascyn,e

fect ofgin-en-sion of in-

702 BONIN, PEEREM

.0049334,p , .001;F2(1, 86)5 16.48,MSE5

.0066731,p , 001. The interaction betweePosition and Word Type was significant by paticipants,F1(1, 35) 5 4.29, MSE 5 .0020885,p , .05, but not significant by items,F2 , 1.Planned comparisons indicated that the contency effect was significant by both participanand items for initial items,F1(1, 35) 5 38,MSE5 .0034829,p , .001;F2(1, 86)5 12.67,MSE5 .0066731,p , .001, as well as for finaitems, F1(1, 35) 5 14.93, MSE 5 .0035390,p , .001;F2(1, 86)5 4.83,MSE5 .0066731,p , .05.

Untimed written picture naming task. Themain effect of Position was significant by paticipants,F1(1, 29)5 5.80,MSE5 .0010864,p, .05, but not by items,F2 , 1. The main effectof Word Type was significant by both particpants and items,F1(1, 29) 5 63.34, MSE 5.0030094,p , .001;F2(1, 88)5 11.45,MSE5.0127580,p , .01. The interaction between Psition and Word Type was significant by particpants,F1(1, 29)5 6.59,MSE5 .0009560,p ,.05, but not by items,F2 , 1. Planned comparisons indicated that errors were more numerfor initial inconsistent items (6.81%) than foconsistent controls (0.28%),F1(1, 29)5 28.16,MSE5 .0022652,p , .001;F2(1, 88)5 3.84,MSE5 .0127580,p , .05, and also more numerous for middle or final inconsistent item(9.71%) than for consistent controls (0.28%F1(1, 29)5 78.29,MSE5 .0017002,p , .001;F2(1, 88)5 7.99,MSE5 .0127580,p , .01. Asin the previous experiments, the consistencyfect on spelling and homophone substitutionrors failed to reach significance when the erdata from the control task were introducedcovariates. Finally, for confidence scores, onthe main effect of Word Type was significanF1(1, 29)5 16.17,MSE5 .0305179,p , .001;F2(1, 88)5 10.13,MSE5 .0373452,p , .01.Planned comparisons indicated that initialconsistent words were given a slightly lowconfidence score (4.84) than their consistcontrols (4.94), but the difference was only maginally significant by both participants anitems,F1(1, 29)5 3.70,MSE5 .0382428,p 5.064;F2(1, 88)5 2.90,MSE5 .0373452,p 5

.091. The spelling confidence score for midd

AN, AND FAYOL

r-

is-ts

r-

-

-

or final inconsistent items (4.82) was signicantly lower than for the consistent contro(4.98), F1(1, 29) 5 41.38, MSE 5 .0092128,p , .001;F2(1, 88)5 7.83,MSE5 .0373452,p , .01.

Discussion

Experiment 3 showed that initial inconsitency, but not middle or final inconsistency,picture names had a detrimental effect on wten latencies. The observation of a consisteeffect suggests that orthographic encoding isfluenced by phonology. Additionally, the resusuggest that the PO sublexical conversprocess works serially from left to right or thwriting starts before the full orthographic ecoding of the target, therefore allowing final iconsistencies to be resolved during handwritiBefore providing a more detailed account these findings (see General Discussion), wevestigate, in Experiments 4 and 5, why midd

-usr

-s),

ef-er-roraslyt,

n-erentr-d

picture naming latencies.

EXPERIMENT 4. WRITINGCONSISTENT AND INCONSISTENT

WORDS FROM AUDITORYPRESENTATIONS

One striking aspect of Experiments 2 andwas that middle or final sublexical consisten(i.e., consistency defined at the level of V or Vunits) did not influence the time taken to initiawriting. This result contrasts with the well-doumented finding that the characteristics body–rime correspondences influence speeded naming of printed letter strings (eGlushko, 1979; Jared, McRae, & Seidenbe1990; Peereman & Content, 1997) as wellwith the observation that rime–body consistenaffects written spelling-to-dictation (PeeremaContent, & Bonin, 1998). In Experiment 3, wproposed that final inconsistencies do not afwritten latencies either because the initiationwritten production occurs as soon as the bening of the word has been orthographically coded or because the PO sublexical converprocedure works sequentially. The purposeExperiment 4 was to disentangle these two

leterpretations by exploring whether final consis-

T

t

rwca( nren

g

h

cc

riin

rdothnnclh

o

e

yioni

n

-r-et

rly

onaten-rer-Oncy-

d

esloo---iledd-ngns

i-s

es

nri-

adkei-

0e-cy

WRITTEN PIC

tency effects can be found in a spelling-to-diction task.

According to the dual-route theory of spellinto dictation (Kreiner, 1992; Kreiner & Gough1990; Margolin, 1984; Véronis, 1988, see Bar1994 for a synthesis), skilled spellers have troutes at their disposal: A lexical route, whiretrieves the spellings of known words from orthographic lexicon, and a nonlexical, route assembly route), which builds the spellingswords through a sublexical sound-to-spelliconversion process (Barry, 1994). In Kreine(1996) parallel-interactive model, both routare involved in parallel to compute a spellipattern but they differ in their processing timcourse. The route that wins the race can trigthe spelling response. For high-frequenwords, the lexical route usually provides tcorrect spelling before the nonlexical route hfinished its computation. For low-frequenwords, however, since the lexical route for suwords is slower than for high-frequency wordboth routes overlap in time and thus delivcompeting responses when the word carsublexical inconsistencies. Since the resolutof the competition takes time, low-frequency consistent words are expected to yield longersponse latencies than consistent words.

Two different predictions can be put forwaregarding the effect of final inconsistent unitsspelling-to-dictation latencies. Suppose thatwriting act is initiated before the complete ecoding of the word-end. In such a case, owould predict that, as observed in written piture naming, only initial inconsistencies shouimpair responses. Indeed, according to thispothesis, the main determinant of writing onslatencies is the time required for the orthgraphic encoding of the first letters. The null efect of final inconsistencies on written latenciin written picture naming should therefore breplicated in spelling to dictation. Alternativelthe hypothesis of a sequential PO conversprocedure leads one to predict a greater ptional effect in written picture naming than ispelling to dictation because of the strongervolvement of semantic constraints in writtepicture naming than in spelling to dictatio

In written picture naming, because semanti

URE NAMING 703

a-

g,y,o

hn

orofg’ssgeer

cyeasyh

s,erieson-

re-

ne-e-dy-et-

f-se,onsi-

n-n.

quickly plays a dominant role and drives orthographic encoding, the influence of PO convesion would be confined to the beginning of thwords. In spelling to dication, the less importaninfluence of semantic constraints (and the eainvolvement of phonology) would give the POconversion procedure a greater chance to actmost parts of the word. Hence, supposing ththe PO conversion procedure proceeds sequtially, semantic and lexical constraints are molikely to cause the activation of the correct othographic codes before completion of the Pprocedure in written picture naming than ispelling to dictation. As a result, the consisteneffect which was absent in written picture naming for middle or final inconsistencies shoulappear in spelling to dictation.

In Experiment 4, participants had to writthe spellings of auditorily presented wordwhich differed in the consistency of the voweor the rime units. Word frequency was alsmanipulated. Half of the participants had twrite the spellings of words as quickly as possible immediately after their auditory presentation (immediate writing task) and the remaining half were asked to delay overt writing unta response signal occurred several hundrmilliseconds after word presentation (delayewriting task). The delayed writing task was included to assess potential differences resultifrom the triggering of the contact pen wheinitial letters are not matched across stimulusets. This was particularly important in Experment 4 because, unlike Experiment 3, it wanot possible to match the stimulus categorifor the initial letters.

Method

Participants. Sixty psychology students takefrom the same pool as in the previous expements participated in Experiment 4. They hno known hearing deficit. Thirty students toopart in the immediate writing task and 30 in thdelayed writing task. None of them had particpated in the previous experiments.

Material. The target words consisted of 2high-frequency consistent words, 20 high-frquency inconsistent words, 20 low-frequen

csconsistent words, and 20 low-frequency incon-

te

bn2iea

erat.

sohhT

r

iik(obg

lu

se

imoby

cueheol-layhetheas-

fre- in-erereryate

g toeri-

de-ereata

ngici-de-th

hanryrall,di-ererit-d in la-and

if-

2

MSE 5 4475.97,p , .001. More importantly,

5 Four items (riche, rouge, rêve, and rôle) seem to havebeen misheard by most of the participants, a problem that isnot unusual in auditory experiments (e.g., Hamburger &Slowiaczek, 1996). The remaining three items were ex-cluded because they were very frequently misspelled and

704 BONIN, PEEREM

sistent words. The word stimuli were selecfrom the LEXOP lexical database (PeeremanContent, 1999).

Most of the inconsistencies were carried the vowel (V) or the rime unit (VC). The meaphono-orthographic consistency of C1, V, CC1V, and VC2 appears in Table 6 together wthe mean log frequency, number of phonemnumber of letters, number of phonologicneighbors, and log bigram frequency. For eafrequency level, the consistent and inconsistwords were matched for the number of letteThe target words were recorded by a femspeaker and digitized using 16-bit analog-digital conversion at a sampling rate of 44with the SoundEdit software on a Macintocomputer. Auditory length durations, position the uniqueness point (Marslen-Wilson & Wels1978), and auditory length durations at tuniqueness point also appear in Table 6. stimulus words are provided in Appendix 4.

Apparatus. The same apparatus as in the pvious experiments was used.

Procedure. The participants were tested indvidually. The experimental session started w20 practice trials. In the immediate writing taseach trial began with a visual ready signal presented for 1000 ms at the center of a cputer screen. It was followed, 200 ms later,the auditory stimulus word presented throuheadphones. The intertrial interval was 5 s. Tparticipants were required to write the stimuas fast as possible on the graphic tablet usincontact pen. They were told to write a crowhen the stimulus was not identified. After rsponding, participants were instructed to cocentrate on the center of the screen. The telapsing between the onset of the auditory wand the contact of the pen with the graphic tawas recorded by the computer. In the delawriting task, the main change in procedure wthat participants had to wait for a response (a “?????” signal) before writing the word. Ttarget word was presented auditorily and flowed by an empty screen for a random deinterval of 1200, 1300, 1400, or 1500 ms. Tcue was then presented and the time until onset of the participant’s response was me

ured. After completion of the experimental se

AN, AND FAYOL

d &

y

,ths,l

chnts.le

o-1hf,ehe

e-

-th,

*)m-yh

hes

g as-

n-e

rdletedas

sion, the participants completed a subjective quency rating task. They were given bookletscluding all the stimulus words. Six squares wprinted in front of each word. The first squawas labeled “unknown” and the last one “vefrequent.” The participants were asked to reach word for its frequency in spokenlanguageby putting a cross in the square correspondintheir choice. Ratings were converted to numcal values ranging from 1 (unknown) to 6 (veryfrequent).

Results

Written latencies longer than 2.5 standard viations above participant and item means wexcluded from the analyses (0.37% of the din both the immediate and delayed writitasks), as were words unknown to the partpants (1.41 and 5.5% in the immediate and layed writing task respectively). Over botasks, seven items were discarded [flair (scent),rouge (red), rêve (dream), rich (rich), rôle(role), kyste (cyst), and suaire (shroud)], be-cause they produced error rates higher t50%.5 In the delayed writing task, anticipatoresponses (2.1%) were also excluded. Ove11.83% and 13.29% of the data in the immeate and delayed writing task respectively wexcluded from the latency analyses. Mean wten latencies and error rates are presenteTable 7. Analyses were performed on writtentencies and on errors with Task, Frequency,Consistency as factors.

For latencies, the Frequency effect was signicant, F1(1, 58) 5 28.67,MSE5 2655.9,p ,.001; F2(1, 69) 5 8.21, MSE 5 5743.75,p ,.01, as was the effect of Consistency,F1(1, 58)550.95, MSE 5 2742, p , .001; F2(1, 69) 515.07,MSE5 5743.75,p , .001. The effect ofTask was also significant,F1(1, 58) 5 48.41,MSE5 141875,p , .001;F (1, 69)5 961.08,

s-too few correct responses remained.

n

re-F (1, 69)5 4.96,MSE5 1485.32,p , .05. A

bFrom Content and Radeau (1988).cValues by type (by token in parentheses) as given by LEXOP (Peereman & Content, 1999).

both the Frequency X Task and the ConsisteX Task interactions were reliable,F1(1, 58) 511.60,MSE5 2655.9,p , .01;F2(1, 69)5 5.72,MSE5 4475.97,p , .05, andF1(1, 58)5 16.81,p , .001,MSE5 2742,p , .0;F2(1, 69)5 6.67,MSE5 4475.97,p , .05, respectively. These interactions indicated that both the consisteneffect and the frequency effect were strongerthe immediate than in the delayed writing tasPlanned comparisons indicated that the f

Delayed spelling 714.7 (3.3) 697

cy

-cyink.

F1(1, 58)5 38.36,MSE5 2655.90,p , .001;F2(1, 69)5 8.14,MSE5 8734.39,p , .01, butnot in delayed writing,F1(1, 58)5 1.90,MSE52655.88,p 5 .17; F2(1, 69) 5 1.10, MSE 51485.32,p 5 .30. The consistency effect wassignificant in both the immediate,F1(1, 58) 563.14, MSE 5 2742, p , .001; F2(1, 69) 512.48,MSE5 8734.40,p , .001, and delayedwriting, F1(1, 58)5 4.61,MSE5 2742,p , .05;

WRITTEN PICTURE NAMING 705

TABLE 6

Characteristics of the Word Stimuli Used in Experiment 4

Low-frequency words High-frequency words

p Values p ValuesInc Con (t tests) Inc Con (t tests)

Log word frequencya 2.5 2.7 ns 4.3 4.1 nsNumber of phonemes 3.65 3.65 ns 3.70 3.55 nsAL duration (ms) 782.5 783.7 ns 783.4 782.8 nsPosition of UP 4.2 4.2 ns 4.3 4.5 ns

(number of phonemes)AL duration at the UP (ms) 686.75 694.50 ns 699.55 774 nsNumber of letters 5.0 5.0 ns 5.0 5.0 nsNumber of phonological 8.65 7.50 ns 8.85 11.40 ns

neighbors

Log bigram frequencyb 2.9 2.7 ns 3.0 3.0 ns

Onset (C1) consistencyc 0.84 0.97 ns 0.96 0.98 ns

(0.82) (1.0) (5.05) (0.92) (1.0) (ns)Vowel (V) consistencyc 0.40 0.92 ,.01 0.21 0.92 ,.01

(0.39) (0.98) (,.01) (0.22) (0.98) (,.01)Coda (C2) consistencyc 0.43 0.88 ,.01 0.55 0.84 ,.01

(0.41) (0.97) (,.01) (0.57) (0.92) (,.01)C1V consistencyc 0.62 0.87 ,.01 0.41 0.91 ,.01

(0.65) (0.89) (,.05) (0.64) (0.96) (,.01)VC2 consistencyc 0.23 0.97 ,.01 0.21 0.94 ,.01

(0.21) (1.0) (,.01) (0.47) (0.96) (,.01)

Note.Con 5 consistent; Inc 5 inconsistent; UP 5 uniqueness point; AL 5 auditory length.aLog word frequency per 100 million from Imbs (1971).

2

de-

iment 4)

)

quency effect was significant in immediate,post hoc analysis was therefore performed to

TABLE 7

Mean Latencies (in Milliseconds) and Percentages of Errors as a Function of Frequency and Consistency (Exper

High-frequency words Low-frequency words

Inconsistent Consistent Inconsistent Consistent

Immediate spelling 1055.6 (2.0) 993.3 (0.9) 1125.6 (10.9) 1037.9 (0.5

.3 (2.6) 730.8 (11.8) 707.1 (3.5)

t

a

i

e

,

r

ci

et

n

f

ag

ivge

on

butrror ob-

twoncybut re-sk.was

iesif-ini-tentrat-is

ffect affect, itteg

een

that-

forre-

at-nd

ofdi-

rehestsit-calho-llerteden

the stimulus word and the “go” signal should,on average, have permitted the establishment

6 The delayed writing task could be influenced by consis-

706 BONIN, PEEREM

termine whether the consistency effect was ssignificant in immediate writing when the delayed written latencies were entered as covates. This analysis revealed that the main effeof consistency and of frequency were still signicant, as were the consistency effects for higand low-frequency words.

The analyses on the error data indicated rable effects of Frequency,F1(1, 58) 5 40.32,MSE5 .0024080,p , .001; F2(1, 76) 5 9.87,MSE 5 .0177898,p , .01, and ConsistencyF1(1, 58) 5 51.64,MSE5 .0025755,p , .001;F2(1, 76) 5 11.68,MSE5 .0177898,p , .001.Due to numerous response anticipations, erwere more numerous in delayed than in immdiate writing, F1(1,58) 5 7.01, MSE 5.0038748,p , .05; F2(1, 76) 5 17.29,MSE5.0012153,p , .001. Only the Frequency X Consistency interaction effect was significant,F1(1,58) 5 27.84,MSE5 .0030832,p , .001; F2(1,76) 5 9.62,MSE5 .0177898,p , .01. Plannedcomparisons indicated that for high-frequenwords, the consistency effect was not signcant,Fs , 1, whereas it was significant for lowfrequency words,F1(1, 58) 5 47.14, MSE 5.0045873,p , .001; F2(1, 76) 5 21.26,MSE5.0177898,p , .001. For spelling errors, thsame pattern of results was found except thamain effect of Task was not significant,Fs , 1.

Subjective frequency ratings. Mean subjec-tive frequency ratings were as follows: 5.06 a5.15 for high-frequency consistent and inconstent words respectively and 3.72 and 3.63 low-frequency consistent and inconsistewords respectively. The only effect of note wthat Frequency had a reliable effect on ratinF1(1, 59) 5 524.34, MSE 5 .2348157,p ,.001; F2(1, 76) 5 114.75,MSE 5 .3576626,p , .001. An additional analysis indicatedreliable correlation of .79 between log objectfrequency and subjective frequency ratinThus, word classification on the basis of subjtive frequency ratings for spoken language win agreement with word classification basedobjective frequency in printed material.

Discussion

The data gathered in the immediate writintask are straightforward. Both consistency a

AN, AND FAYOL

ill-ri-ctsf-h-

li-

orse-

-

yfi--

the

dis-orntss,

a es.c-as

word frequency influenced written latencies these two factors did not interact. For the edata, frequency and consistency effects wereserved, as was an interaction between thefactors. In the delayed writing task, consisteeffects were observed for written latencies additional analyses showed that they wereduced compared to the immediate writing taFor errors, the same pattern of results as found for immediate writing was observed.

The consistency effect observed in latencin delayed writing might result either from dferences in contact pen triggering (different tial letters) between consistent and inconsisitems, or from differences in the ease of geneing the graphic motor program. Although thresult suggests that part of the consistency eobserved in immediate writing might havesimilar source, consistency had a stronger ein immediate than in delayed writing. Henceis likely that the effect observed in immediawriting reflects additional difficulties resultinfrom the inconsistency of the mapping betwphonological and orthographic units.6 This find-ing thus replicates the previous observation writing latencies for words which mainly include final inconsistencies are longer thanconsistent words in spelling to dictation (Peeman et al., 1998).

In contrast to the written latencies, the ptern of errors was analogous in immediate adelayed writing. Moreover, the numberspelling errors was almost identical in immeate (N 5 46) and in delayed spelling (N 5 45).Also, in both tasks, most of the errors wephonologically based (92% in both tasks). Tsimilar error patterns in the two tasks suggethat most of the errors in the immediate wring task were not due to incorrect subleximappings between phonological and ortgraphic units. Indeed, in such a case, a smaconsistency effect would have been expecin delayed writing because the delay betwe

gndtency if one supposes that, on some occasions, the responsewas not fully prepared before the “go” signal appeared.

T

ninaic

ta

gtmncwo

edal

sx

re

gm

ne

icehr

ipnothl

er-

cyofberheil--edh-c-

esus,s,ens

s-yr,

ela-ics

and spelling-to-dictation performance in greater

enn--atd

li-o-

df--ayfn--

s

aO

conversion procedure and of the semantic or lex-

WRITTEN PIC

of more correct orthographic representatioAlternatively, the similarity of the error databoth tasks is compatible with our previoussumption that errors essentially result fromaccurate spelling knowledge for low-frequeninconsistent words.

The finding that final inconsistencies affeimmediate written latencies in spelling to diction but not in written picture naming appeadifficult to reconcile with the claim that writinstarts before the orthographic encoding ofword-end. In contrast, this observation seein agreement with the hypothesis that phoorthographic conversion is a sequential produre. The crucial difference between the ttasks is that semantic constraints are mlikely to quickly dominate phonological constraints in the activation of orthographic codfrom pictures than in the case of spoken wortherefore making it less likely that sublexicconversion will process sequentially up unthe end of the word.

Given the assumption of differential proceing time- courses for the lexical and the sublecal processes in spelling to dictation, largconsistency effects were anticipated for low- fquency words than for high-frequency onHowever, the finding that high- and lowfrequency words were similarly affected by sulexical consistency parallels recent findinreported by Jared (1997) on printed word naing. Jared (1997) showed that consisteeffects emerge for high-frequency words whtheir lexical neighborhood characteristmatched those of low-frequency words. Whthe number of frequent words, including tsame body–rime correspondence as the ta(friendly neighbors), and the number of frequewords, including the same body but with a dferent pronunciation (enemies), were approately matched across the two word frequecategories, similar consistency effects wereserved. We therefore further examinedneighborhood characteristics of the stimuwords to assess whether differences existedtween high- and low-frequency words in termof the number of friends and enemies. UnlikeJared’s (1997) study, computations were p

formed on the phonological-to-orthograph

URE NAMING 707

s.

s-n-y

ct-

rs

hes

o-e-ore

-ss,

correspondences. Both high- and low-frequeninconsistent words had a small numberfriends (4 and 4 respectively) and a large numof enemies (16 and 15 respectively). Tsummed frequency of friends was 433 (per mlion) and 234 for high- and low-frequency inconsistent words respectively, and the summfrequency of enemies was 557 and 488 for higand low-frequency inconsistent words respetively (as in Jared, neighbors with frequencigreater than 1000 were truncated to 1000). Ththe similarity of neighborhood characteristicessentially for frequency of enemies, betwehigh- and low-frequency inconsistent wordmight account for the finding of robust consitency effects for both high- and low-frequencwords in the spelling-to-dictation task. Howevefurther studies are needed to investigate the rtionship between neighborhood characterist

til

s-i-

ere-s.-b-s-

cynsnegetntf-ri-cyb-e

usbe-sin

details.

EXPERIMENT 5: A FURTHER LOOK ATTHE FINAL CONSISTENCY EFFECT IN

SPELLING TO DICTATION

Even though Experiment 4 replicated thfinding that final inconsistencies impair writteperformance in spelling to dictation (Peeremaet al., 1998), the comparison with the null consistency effect on written picture naming latencies (Experiment 3) is weakened by the fact thdifferent items were used in Experiments 3 an4. Therefore, in Experiment 5, we aimed at repcating the final consistency effect in spelling tdictation using items from Experiment 3. In addition, using items from Experiment 3 alloweus to test whether initial inconsistencies also afect spelling to dictation. Such an effect is expected given that phonology is assumed to pla dominant role right from the early stages oprocessing. However, whether the expected cosistency effect for middle or final inconsistencies in spelling to dictation, is similar in size tothe consistency effect for initial inconsistencieis a question that cannot be answered apriori .Indeed, different predictions can be made asfunction of the supposed time course of the P

icical influence on orthographic encoding. Similar

c

on

z

i

m

e)

tg

i1eteio

e

-

ncythelu-cy de-ed.emcies

etial ef-

lso

dsal

di-ant

,

t of

-n

nt,

thel

fin-ifi-penedffectlly

708 BONIN, PEEREM

size effects are expected if semantic or lexiconstraints do not occur early enough relativethe PO conversion procedure, but a smaller csistency effect for middle or final inconsistecies can be predicted if semantic or lexical infomation influences orthographic encoding befocompletion of the PO conversion procedure. Omain prediction, however, is that irrespectivewhether the consistency effect differs in siacross positions, inconsistencies of middlefinal units should be more detrimentalspelling to dictation than in written picture naming.

Method

Participants. Thirty psychology students fromthe same pool as in the previous experimewere involved in Experiment 5. None of thehad participated in the previous experiments.

Material. Four categories of words were usin Experiment 5: Initial Inconsistent items (IIInitial Control items (IC), Final Inconsistenitems (FI), and Final Control items (FC). Thstimulus words corresponded to the labels ofpictures used in Experiment 3, except that eihomophonic words were replaced by nonhomphonic words (these eight nonhomophonwords are presented in brackets in AppendixThis change was necessary because homophwords would have induced spelling uncertaintwhen presented auditorily. Furthermore,items used in Experiment 3 were replaced tosure that the sets of stimuli were matched forsame variables as those described for Expment 4 (these items are marked with an “*”Appendix 3). The percentage of items commto both experiments was 78%. As in Experime3, II and FI items were matched as closelypossible with consistent items (IC and FC rspectively) on the initial letter or letter strokGiven this matching, a delayed spelling task wnot included. The average word characteristare presented in Table 8.

Apparatus and procedure. These were identical to those used in Experiment 4.

Results

As in the previous experiments, data abo

2.5 standard deviations from the participant a

AN, AND FAYOL

alton--r-reurofeorn-

nts

d,tehehto-ic3).onices2n-

heri-

nn

ntase-.asics

ve

item means were discarded from the lateanalyses (0.54% of the data). Application of criteria defined in Experiment 4 led to the excsion of 6.58% of the data from the latenanalyses. For the error analyses, the criteriafined in the previous experiments were appliIn contrast to the previous experiments, no itwas excluded from the analyses. Mean latenand error rates are presented in Table 9.

ANOVAs were performed with Word Typ(inconsistent vs consistent) and Position (inivs final) as factors. For the latency data, thefect of Word Type was significant,F1(1, 29) 5120.34,MSE5 2558.60,p , .001; F2(1, 76) 519.53,MSE5 10661.14,p , .001. The effect ofPosition was not significant,F1(1, 29) 5 1.75,MSE5 2795.15,p 5 .19; F2 , 1. The interac-tion between Position and Word Type was anot significant, both F1 and F2 , 1. As Table 9shows, the consistency effect for initial wor(1102 ms) was nearly identical to that for finwords (1100 ms). Planned comparisons incated that the Word type effect was significfor initial items, F1(1, 29) 5 60.26, MSE 52609, p , .001; F2(1, 76) 5 10.04, MSE 510661.10,p , .01, as well as for final itemsF1(1, 29) 5 61.92,MSE 5 2433.8,p , .001;F2(1, 76) 5 9.49,MSE5 10661.10,p , .01.

As far as errors are concerned, the effecWord Type was reliable,F1(1, 29) 5 33.65,MSE5 .0059454,p , .001; F2(1, 76) 5 11.60,MSE5 .0114956,p , .01. The effect of Position, F1 and F2 , 1, and the interaction betweeWord Type and Position were not significaF1(1, 29) 5 1.17,MSE5 .0025690,p 5 .29; F2

, 1. Planned comparisons indicated that Word type effect was significant for initiaitems,F1(1, 29) 5 29.19,MSE5 .0043175,p ,.001; F2(1, 76) 5 7.31,MSE5 .0114956,p ,.01, as well as for final items,F1(1, 29) 5 18.36,MSE5 .0041968,p , .001; F2(1, 76) 5 4.47,MSE 5 .0114956,p , .05. In the case ospelling errors, the effect of Position and the teraction between the two factors were signcant in the participant analysis only. Word tyhad a reliable effect in both analyses. Plancomparisons revealed that the consistency ewas significant by participants but margina

ndsignificant by items.

tiorluethitthio

ni-

stthe

5ids

it-naling

The observation that final inconsistencies

From Content and Radeau (1988).c L

Discussion

The data replicated the previous observa(Experiment 4; Peereman et al., 1998) that wten latencies were longer when the stimuwords included a final inconsistent unit. Morover, this effect was obtained using most ofstimulus words that produced no effect in wrten picture naming (Experiment 3). The hypoesis that, in general, the spelling-to-dictattask magnifies the consistency effect can bejected since effects of similar magnitude for i

Values by type (by token in parentheses) as given by

1280.4 (11.8) 1178.1 (2.7)

nit-s-e--nre-

dictation and written picture naming. A pohoc analysis carried out on the latencies forset of items used in both Experiments 3 andconfirmed that the initial consistency effect dnot significantly differ between the two task(112 and 88 ms in spelling to dictation and wrten picture naming respectively), whereas fiinconsistencies influenced latencies in spellto dictation (188 ms) but not in written picturenaming (17 ms).

EXOP (Peereman & Content, 1999).

WRITTEN PICTURE NAMING 709

TABLE 8

Characteristics of the Word Stimuli Used in Experiment 5

Initial inconsistencies Final inconsistencies

p Values p ValuesInconsistent Control (t tests) Inconsistent Control (t tests)

Word frequencya 2.93 2.94 ns 3.05 3.06 nsNumber of phonemes 4.10 4.05 ns 3.25 3.70 nsAL duration (ms) 697.8 696.6 ns 698.2 697.1 ns

Position of UP 3.90 4.55 ns 4.00 4.40 5.065(number of phonemes)

Number of letters 5.35 5.05 ns 4.95 5.15 nsNumber of phonological 4.95 6.40 ns 9.20 8.25 ns

neighbors

Bigram frequencyb 951.21 1216.10 ns 837.31 921.45 ns

Onset (C1) 0.18 0.94 ,.01 0.99 0.97 nsconsistencyc (0.28) (0.87) (,.01) (0.99) (0.97) (ns)

Vowel (V) 0.63 0.91 ,.01 0.43 0.93 ,.01consistencyc (0.66) (0.97) (,.01) (0.41) (0.99) (,.01)

Coda (C2) consistencyc 0.79 0.81 ns 0.57 0.84 ,.01(0.80) (0.91) (ns) (0.61) (0.89) (,.05)

C1V consistencyc 0.28 0.82 ,.01 0.59 0.91 ,.01(0.29) (0.84) (,.01) (0.57) (0.90) (,.01)

VC2 consistencyc 0.64 0.84 ,.10 0.34 0.91 ,.01(0.62) (0.93) (,.05) (0.29) (0.98) (,.01)

Note. UP = uniqueness point; AL 5 auditory length.aLog word frequency per 100 million from Imbs (1971).b

to

tial inconsistencies were observed in spelling tohave an effect on written latencies in spelling

TABLE 9

Mean Latencies (in Milliseconds) and Percentages of Errors as a Function of Consistency and Position of the Inconsistency (Experiment 5)

Initial position Final position

Inconsistent Consistent Inconsistent Consistent

1266.6 (9.8) 1166.3 (2.7)

ha

neo

e

leiedi-

d

h

c

es

t

t

s

ogh

in

in

ef-lly

er-ryots

ely,:

3, ing-orser-

roneous orthographic specifications of words in

y-ri-l,)re

gi-o-ho- there-n-in

b-ndentin- in

sdal-at-erein

is--

calconsistency, they were matched for sublex-

710 BONIN, PEEREM

dictation does not support the assumption twriting begins as soon as the initial letter hbeen encoded. To account for the influenceinitial but not final inconsistencies in writtepicture naming (Experiment 3), we proposthat semantic influence on orthographic encing quickly develops when writing words frompictures, therefore allowing final inconsistencito be resolved before production. We predictthat, because semantics should be less invoin spelling to dictation than in written picturnaming, final inconsistencies could affect wrten latencies in spelling to dictation. This prdiction was confirmed by the data. The adtional finding of no greater latency cost foinitial than for final inconsistencies in spellinto dictation contrasts with the documented fining of a position of inconsistency effect in reaing aloud (Coltheart & Rastle, 1994; RastleColtheart, 1999). However, as we noted in tintroduction to Experiment 5, the observationeffects of similar magnitude for initial and finainconsistencies is not incompatible with the asumption of a sequential PO conversion produre if the lexical or semantic influence on othographic encoding is too slow to prevesublexical conversion of the entire word. Consquently, for both initial and final inconsistencies, the correct spelling of the word will conflict with the output of the sublexical procedurAlthough we acknowledge that the hypotheof a parallel PO conversion procedure migalso account for the results in spelling to diction, this hypothesis seems more difficult to reoncile with the position effect observed in writen picture naming. Whether position effects cbe found in spelling to dictation is an issuwhich deserves further investigation. It is posble, for example, that our stimulus words wenot long enough (in terms of the numberphoneme-to-grapheme correspondences) torise to a position effect or that the nature of tinconsistencies used in initial position andmiddle or final position are not fully comparable. The most important finding from Experment 5, however, is that the middle or final iconsistencies which did not impair writtepicture naming caused longer latencies

spelling to dictation.

AN, AND FAYOL

atsof

dd-

sedved

t--

Experiment 5 also showed a consistency fect on errors (though the effect was marginasignificant in the item analysis when spelling rors only were considered). Moreover, contrato written latencies, the error pattern did nvary as a function of task (for the set of itemused in both Experiments 3 and 5 respectivII: 9–8%; IC: 1.17–1.21%; FI: 5.33–5.42%; FC0.17–0.49%). As suggested for Experimentthe observation of a similar pattern of errorsthe untimed written picture naming task sugests that most errors are “competence” err(as opposed to “performance” errors) due to

rgd--

&e

ofls-e-r-nte---.ishta-c--anei-

refivee

in---

n

the participant’s mental lexicon.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

A growing body of evidence from neuropschological case studies and also from expements with normal participants (Bonin, Fayo& Gombert, 1997, 1998; Bonin et al., 1998supports the hypothesis that written pictunaming does not require obligatory phonolocal mediation. However, although the orthgraphic autonomy hypothesis states that ortgraphic codes can be directly accessed onbasis of semantic information, it does not pclude the possibility that phonology might costrain the selection of orthographic codes written picture naming through lexical or sulexical connections between phonological aorthographic codes. The purpose of the presstudy was to determine whether phonology fluences the selection of orthographic codesspeeded written picture naming.

The findings from our five experimentare straightforward. Experiment 1 examinewhether consistency, defined at the lexiclevel, affected written picture naming performance. Homophonic picture names for whichleast two orthographic lexical forms correspond to a single phonological form wercompared with nonhomophonic control pictunames. Homophonic picture names resultedmore errors than control names, but constency did not affect written latencies. However, although word sets contrasted on lexi

ical consistency. Hence, in Experiment 2, we

T

n

ee

o

ui

ir

rnt

ne

s

tan

h

es.rendtoofs,redinti-

elyl isat

ectelle-

n-it

edtorn-inestonre-e-

escsd.ti-c-t.dsn-tle

s-s-

sis-en

WRITTEN PIC

examined whether differences in latencies aerrors emerged when consistency was defiat the level of subword units. Again, we founthat both high- and low-frequency inconsistewords gave rise to more errors than consistwords, while no reliable effect was observon written latencies. Because spelling incosistencies were generally located at the wendings, the failure to observe a consisteneffect on latencies might have resulted eithfrom the sequential processing of the PO slexical conversion or from the fact that itpossible to initiate writing as soon as the bginning of the word is orthographically specfied. We therefore manipulated the positionthe inconsistent unit in Experiment 3. The crical finding was that picture labels that weinconsistent in the initial unit gave rise tlonger response latencies than matched content controls. Thus, evidence for phonologicconstraints in written picture naming wafound, consistent with the primary goal of thpresent study.

Experiments 4 and 5 were designed to exaine why consistency affected written pictunaming latencies only in the case of initial iconsistent units. The data led us to rejecthypothesis that the absence of a consistencyfect on latencies for word-final inconsisteitems resulted from writing initiation beforthe orthographic encoding of the word-end. Ideed, unlike in the written picture naming ta(Experiments 1–3), both initial and final inconsistencies affected written latencies whentargets were presented auditorily. The dwere interpreted in terms of the differential ivolvement of semantic influence in the twtasks in the determination of orthographic acvation and by assuming that sublexical mapings between phonological and orthograpunits proceed sequentially.

A finding in all of the experiments was thathe error data did not mirror the latency data.Experiments 1 and 2, consistency effects onrors appeared in the absence of effectslatencies, and in Experiment 3, the positionthe inconsistent unit affected latencies but n

errors. Finally, in Experiment 4, the consistency effect on latencies was larger in immed

URE NAMING 711

ndeddntntdn-rdcyerb-

se-i-oft-e

osis-alse

m-e-heef-t

n-k-heta-oti-p-ic

tIner-onofot

ate spelling than in delayed spelling, but theffect on errors did not differ across conditionInterestingly, although consistency effects weobserved for errors, the nature of the errors athe magnitude of the effects were similarthose observed in a control study consistingan untimed written picture naming task. Thuit is likely that the larger number of errors foinconsistent items in Experiments 1–3 resultfrom incorrect orthographic representationsthe lexicon and not from orthographic competion during processing.

Modeling Written Picture Naming

Within the theoretical framework outlined inthe Introduction, and depicted in Fig. 1, thconsistency effect on written latencies strongsuggests that activation at the grapheme leveconstrained by phonology. It is assumed thgraphemic encoding occurs as a result of diractivation of graphemes from semantics as was through the PO sublexical conversion procdure (arrow B in Fig. 1). As soon as enough iformation is available at the grapheme level,is transmitted for further processing dedicatto letter-shape encoding and peripheral moprocesses. To account for the finding that cosistency influences written latencies onlythe case of initial inconsistencies, we suggthat phonology constrains grapheme activatithrough a sublexical conversion proceduworking sequentially from left to right. Final inconsistencies do not affect written latencies bcause a full specification of orthographic codis attained through activation from semantibefore sublexical conversion of the word-enConsequently, for inconsistent units, competion between lexical and sublexical codes ocurs only when words are initially inconsistenHence, as in the oral reading of printed wor(Coltheart & Rastle, 1994; Content, 1991; Cotent & Peereman, 1992; Cortese, 1998; Ras& Coltheart, 1999), the position of the inconsitent unit within the word determines the consitency effect in writing words from pictures.

Such an account led us to predict that contency effects for final units could emerge wh

-i-the semantic influence on orthographic code activation arises too slowly to prevent the sub-

en

se

n

au

r

e iur

rP

no

w

t

n

l

ent

as-eralesed

thead-f ther-

onsftenrgeravee-of

ntonw-oflt-

b-the

edndn.tlyalmeotes.of

ofeme-elsx-l-n-calsesactesre

ape-

quent one. For example, Baxter and Warrington

712 BONIN, PEEREM

lexical conversion of the whole word. As wsuggested, the spelling-to-dictation task is llikely to be dominated by semantic constraithan the written picture naming task. On the ohand, the production of picture labels necesily requires access to semantics since the rtions between pictorial representations awords are entirely arbitrary. On the other haphonological information is involved from thvery beginning in spelling to dictation. Hencthe relative contribution of semantic informtion and of the sublexical conversion procedin orthographic encoding should differ in thtwo tasks (see Cutting & Ferreira, 1999 for a lated discussion concerning spoken word pduction from pictures or auditorily presentwords). Consequently, semantic informationmore likely to quickly dominate orthographcode selection when the stimulus is a pictthan when it corresponds to an auditorily psented word. In spelling to dictation, final incosistencies were therefore expected to affect wten latencies because the absence of stsemantic constraints allows the sublexical conversion of whole words. As discussed abothe observation that the size of the consisteeffect did not vary as a function of the positiof inconsistent units in spelling to dictatiomight seem intriguing in the light of the data rported for reading words aloud (Coltheart Rastle, 1994; Rastle & Coltheart, 1999). Hoever, as pointed out above, the lack of any snificant modulation of the consistency effecta function of the position of inconsistency migbe ascribed to differences in the nature anddegree of the inconsistencies. Also, the relacontribution of lexical and sublexical processmight differ in naming printed words aloud anin writing spoken words. The sequential natuof speech might be particularly important sinit allows the sublexical process to operate each incoming phoneme and before selectiothe word entry in the mental lexicon. If the sulexical procedure is more likely to process twhole word in spelling to dictation than in naming printed words aloud, then a greater leveconflict between lexical and sublexical informtion can be expected for word final inconsist

units. Although further work is necessary to u

AN, AND FAYOL

esstsnear-la-

ndd,

ee,-reee-ro-discree-n-rit-ongO

ve,cynne-&-

ig-ashttheiveesdreceon ofb-he-

ofa-

derstand these differences across tasks, thispect of the data does not undermine our genclaim that orthographic encoding from picturis influenced by sublexical phonology deliversequentially.

Although a full characterization of the POsublexical process is beyond the scope ofpresent study, two main questions need to bedressed. The first issue concerns the nature osublexical units on which the sublexical convesion procedure operates. Although associatibetween phonemes and graphemes have obeen considered as a valuable candidate, launits such as phoneme groups or syllables halso been proposed (e.g., Tainturier, 1997). Rcent observations, that in French, the spellingthe /O/ phoneme is contextually dependemight indicate sound-to-print associationslarge units (Pacton et al., in press, 2001). Hoever, it remains unclear whether the influencecontext on spelling should be viewed as resuing from the use of contextually sensitive sulexical associations or as a consequence ofpooling of orthographic hypotheses derivfrom simple, noncontextual associations aword knowledge activated in the mental lexicoFor example, Rapp et al. (in press) have recenproposed that the sublexical and lexicprocesses integrate information at a graphelevel. These two processes are thought to “vfor” or activate their candidate graphemic codeIn the undamaged system, the lexical sourceactivation prevails, identifiable either in termsa stronger vote produced by the lexical systand/or in terms of feedback connections btween the grapheme and orthographic levwhich may serve to stabilize and amplify the leical contribution. As Fig. 1 shows, in our modeing of written picture naming we have also edorsed the idea that both the PO sublexiconversion and the semantic-lexical procesfeed into a common grapheme level. The excharacterization of the competition that takplace at this level is, however, a matter for futuempirical studies and/or simulations.

A related question is whether graphemes mto multiple phonemes or only to the most fr

n-(1987) have suggested that only a single idio-

T

t

8

ihl

ua

i

ta

g-ntleent-ds:een

ordheena-

ualOneelarfacttici-ore ins inon-gesttho-athic

rdsCar- thethattheho-butca-m- didndx-

ineilar

orsghb-at-hon-

sidered learning-disabled (e.g., Holmes & Car-

7 In Experiment 3, the consistency effect was also ob-served for latencies when the inconsistent units corre-sponded to the initial unit of the word. Hence, for these

WRITTEN PIC

syncratic mapping should be represented.constrast, Goodman and Caramazza (19have proposed that multiple phoneme-grapheme mappings are represented for ephoneme, e.g., /k/ → c, k, qu. Evidence fromanalyses of spelling errors by brain-damagpatients (e.g., Goodman & Caramazza, 19Sanders & Caramazza, 1990) and norm(Barry & Seymour, 1988) has revealed a huvariability in the spelling of the same phonemsequences. This strongly suggests that a singrapheme option is not encoded for eaphoneme. These data are more compatible wthe hypothesis that the sublexical conversprocedure encodes the full range of tphoneme-to-grapheme associations of theguage. The selection among the possible mping options for each phoneme would thenbased on the frequency with which they occin the language, as evidenced by the strong crelation between the distribution of spellingproduced for a given phoneme and the actdistribution of spellings in the language for thphoneme (Goodman & Caramazza, 198Sanders & Caramazza, 1990).

Spelling Errors and Homophonic (or Quasihomophonic) Substitution Errors

Spelling errors and homophone substituterrors have often played a central role in moding written production. The spelling errors ehibited by brain-damaged patients and so-called “slips of the pen” (Ellis, 1982) occsionally produced by normal writers have befrequently taken as evidence for the involvment of phonology in writing (Aitchison &Todd, 1982). In all of our three picture writinexperiments, there were more spelling errorsinconsistent items than on consistent onMoreover, most of the spelling errors resultedphonologically plausible pseudowords (e.tank: tanque, tanck, etc.). For example, in Experiment 3, 92% of errors on initial inconsistewords consisted of phonologically plausibpseudowords (almost exactly the same percage was observed for final inconsistent wor89%). A straightforward interpretation would bthat errors reflect on-line competition betwe

alternative orthographic codes for inconsiste

URE NAMING 713

In86)o-ach

ed6;

alsgeeglechith

one

an-ap-beuror-salt6;

onel-x-he -

ene-

g ones. in.,

items. For instance, the inconsistent wphoquewould result in more errors than tconsistent word tabledue to the fact that, for thformer item, there are two orthographic altertives that match the initial sound /f/ (ph / f) andat least three for the rime unit /ɔk/ (oque, ok,oc). Conversely, for the word table, there is aone-to-one mapping between the individsounds and their orthographic counterparts. difficulty with this interpretation is that, in thcontrol written picture naming study, a simipattern of errors was observed despite the that the task was not timed and that the parpants were told to check their responses. Mimportantly, when the error scores obtainedthe control task were introduced as covariatethe error analyses of Experiments 1–3, the csistency effect vanished. These findings sugthat these errors were due to inaccurate orgraphic knowledge. A similar observation thuniversity students have incorrect orthograpspecifications for some low-frequency wohas recently been reported by Holmes and ruthers (1998). Thus, the data gathered incontrol task lead us to favor the hypothesis the consistency effect found for errors in speeded-writing tasks did not result from ortgraphic code competition during processing instead from inaccurate orthographic specifitions within the lexicon. This hypothesis is copatible with the observation that consistencynot affect writing latencies in Experiments 1 a2 as well as for final-inconsistent items in Eperiment 3. If errors were the result of on-lcompetition, we would have expected simeffects on latencies.7

The present study showed that spelling erroccur in adults even when they have enoutime to check their own productions. This oservation is in line with other data demonstring reading and spelling difficulties in higschool and university students who are not c

ntitems, we cannot exclude the possibility that errors weremainly the result of orthographic competition.

e,oeae

aill-r-n-

oeorxe

ie&da

e

&b

ritornieees

oeahngd

. Ita-e

tedo-r-

eya

-ri-

eingree-phichisintsts

an

e

ting. to

hateral.,en

or-ultcia-ur-

he

ofnex-inicia-rs.p-neme

714 BONIN, PEEREM

ruthers, 1998; Skankweiler, Lundquist, Drey& Dickinson, 1996). In young childrenspelling errors are often assumed to result frreliance on sound-to-print associations whorthographic word-specific representationsmissing or underspecified. Hence, it has beobserved that numerous incorrect spellingschildren are phonologically plausible and ththe proportion of these errors is higher in chdren with no learning disabilities than in chidren having difficulties in using analytical corespondences between print and sound (Len& Siegel, 1993). Although phonologically plausible spelling errors are expectedirregular/inconsistent words if spelling is drived by sound-to-print correspondences, errcan also result from incorrect word-specific othographic representations in the mental lecon. One argument in favor of such a hypothsis is the fact that adults have been shownrecognize words faster when presented wtheir own misspellings than when presentwith the correct orthographic form (HolmesCarruthers, 1998). How incorrect worspellings can stabilize in lexical memory isquestion that has not yet been addressedgreat detail, but it is now clearly establishethat adults’ spelling performance decreaswhen the spellers have been presented withcorrect spellings, even 1 week before (DixonKaminska, 1997; see also Brown, 1988; Jaco& Hollingshead, 1990). According to Eh(1997), some spellings are more difficultlearn than others, such as in the case of woincluding phonemes represented by exceptioand unfrequent graphemes and words in whsilent letters occur (Ehri & Wilce, 1982). Thinfluence of the regularity/consistency of the rlations between print and sound can be viewas a self-teaching mechanism such as propoby Jorm and Share (1983; Share, 1995, 199It is assumed that the phonological recodingprint determines the acquisition of word-spcific orthographic representations and that esuccessful phonological conversion of tprinted word increases the probability of learing the correct word spelling. Hence, spellincorresponding to irregular/inconsistent wor

are more difficult to learn because they ar

AN, AND FAYOL

r,

mnren

int-

ox

n-rs-i--

tothd

inds

in-

y

dsal

ch

-ded

9).f-che-ss

harder to map to correct phonological codesmight be that a similar self-teaching mechnism operates when writing words. If so, thspelling that is produced could be consolidain lexical memory when it matches the phonlogical code of the word. Consequently, incorect spellings might be reinforced when thare homophonic to the intended word. Suchpossibility is higher for words involving soundto-print inconsistencies since they permit vaous orthographic renderings for the samsounds. Therefore, during the course of spellacquisition, inconsistent words should be modifficult to remember than consistent words bcause these former possess more orthograoptions than the latter. In accordance with tinterpretation is the experienced erosionspelling knowledge reported by psycholinguisafter conducting large number of experimenusing pseudohomophones (Bosman & VOrden, 1997).

Homophone substitutions (e.g., writing hearfor here, seenfor scene) and quasihomophonsubstitution errors (e.g., writing ovenfor often)have been frequently interpreted as denophonological involvement in written spellingSeveral explanations have been put forwardaccount for these errors. One possibility is tthey reflect phonological mediation eiththrough sublexical conversion (Rapp et 1997) or through direct connections betwephonological and orthographic lexemes (Mton, 1980). Another possibility is that they resfrom the establishment of erroneous assotions between semantics and orthography ding the course of learning (e.g.,hearversus hereas the appropriate orthographic form for tmeaning listen).

In Experiment 1, a substantial proportionerrors on homophonic labels were homophosubstitutions. However, the finding that, in Eperiment 1, homophonic labels did not resultlonger written latencies than nonhomophonones seems to rule out a phonological medtion account of homophone substitution erroIndeed, it is hard to understand how the inapropriate orthographic code of a homophotarget could be activated while, at the sa

etime, producing no additional processing cost

s

ao

e

eeno-sisctlyce,

to-s-hiceo-atof-i-

ione

ultintesgat

WRITTEN PICT

on written latencies when the correct formproduced. The observation of similar percenages of homophone substitution errors in Eperiment 1 (6%) and in the control written picture naming task (5%) suggests thhomophone substitution errors mostly reflecompetence errors and not, as previouclaimed (Ellis, 1984), performance errors. Asresult, we think that a more plausible explantion of homophone substitution errors is thinappropriate associations still exist in aduhood between semantic and orthographic spefications so that, on some occasions, the wroorthographic form is matched to the intendemeaning of the homophone. In some of the pticipants, the correct orthographic forms of hmophones might even be lacking. Holmes aCarruthers (1998) have shown, for exampthat university students are sometimes moconfident about their own misspellings thanthe correct spellings of low-frequency words.

In conclusion, the finding that onset latenci

in written picture naming are affected by initia

Note. Homophonic mates are presented in square brac

URE NAMING 715

ist-x--atctlyaa-atlt-ci-ngdr--

ndle,re

of

s

our knowledge, the first empirical evidencsuggesting a phonological influence on writtproduction from pictures by normals. Propnents of the orthographic autonomy hypotheassume that orthographic codes can be direaccessed from semantic specifications. Henbrain damage affecting either semantic-phonological links or phonological word form(or both) may not hinder written production insofar as the connections between orthograpand semantic codes are preserved. In this thretical framework, our data would suggest,the very least, that in the normal functioningwriting, the influence of phonology on orthographic code specification is unavoidable. Fnally, as we have discussed, the observatthat final inconsistencies did not influenconset written naming latencies might resfrom a sequential component in sound-to-prmapping. The present study, therefore, providstrong empirical constraints for the modelinof the writing process. We acknowledge th

lthe functional details of the modeling need to

sound-to-print inconsistencies represents, tobe identified in detail in future research.

APPENDIX 1

Stimuli for Experiment 1

Homophonic names Nonhomophonic names

Aile (wing) [elle] (she) Aigle (eagle)Ancre (anchor) [encre] (ink) Bol (bowl)Cor (horn) [corps] (body) Bombe (bomb)Cygne (swan) [signe] (sign) Chat (cat)Dent (tooth) [dans] (in) Clou (nail)Houx (holly) [ou] (or) Flûte (flute)Malle (trunk) [mal] (bad) Fouet (whip)Mètre (meter) [mettre] (to put) Gant (glove)Paon (peacock) [pan] (tail) Gland (acorn)Poing (fist) [point] (point) Hache (axe)Pois (pea) [poids] (weight) Jeep (jeep)Porc (pig) [port] (harbour) Lampe (lamp)Pot (pot) [peau] (skin) Lance (lance)Poêle (fryer) [poil] (hair) Loup (wolf)Puits (well) [puis] (then) Oie (goose)Renne (reindeer) [reine] (queen) Pelle (shovel)Seau (pail) [sot] (silly) Pile (battery)Selle (saddle) [sel] (salt) Raie (ray)Tente (tent) [tante] (aunt) Rat (rat)Toit (roof) [toi] (you) Sac (bag)Ver (worm) [vers] (towards) Tank (tank)Vis (screw) [vice] (vice) Tronc (stem)

kets. The approximate English translation is given in parentheses.

r)

716 BONIN, PEEREMAN, AND FAYOL

APPENDIX 2

Stimuli for Experiment 2

High-frequency names Low-frequency names

Consistent Inconsistent Consistent Inconsistent

Arbre (tree) Aile (wing) Arche (arch) Aigle (eagle)Bouche (mouth) Bras (arm) Bague (ring) Ancre (anchor)Cloche (bell) Chaise (chair) Biche (doe) Brosse (brush)Corde (rope) Chèvre (goat) Crabe (crab) Cintre (coat-hangeJupe (skirt) Cœur (heart) Cruche (jug) Cygne (swan)Lion (lion) Croix (cross) Douche (shower) Gland (acorn)Livre (book) Dent (tooth) Gomme (rubber) Harpe (harp)Lune (moon) Doigt (finger) Lime (nail file) Hyène (hyena)Masque (mask) Gant (glove) Louche (soup ladle) Morse (walrus)Mouche (fly) Lampe (lamp) Loupe (magnifying glass) Noix (walnut)Nuage (cloud) Lettre (letter) Luge (sledge) Paon (peacock)Ongle (nail) Pied (foot) Niche (kennel) Peigne (comb)Plume (feather) Poing (fist) Ours (bear) Pelle (shovel)Poche (pocket) Pouce (thumb) Palme (flipper) Phare (beacon)Porte (door) Règle (ruler) Poulpe (octopus) Pince (pliers)Prise (plug) Singe (monkey) Ruche (beehive) Scie (saw)Robe (dress) Tasse (cup) Tarte (pie) Seau (pail)Table (table) Timbre (stamp) Tigre (tiger) Serpe (bill-hook)Vache (cow) Train (train) Tube (tube) Tank (tank)Vase (vase) Verre (glass) Urne (urn) Trèfle (trefoil)

e)

Note. The approximate English translation is given in parentheses.

APPENDIX 3

Stimuli for Experiments 3 and 5

Initial words Final words

Inconsistent Control Inconsistent Control

Aigle (eagle) Arche (arch) Clown (clown) Cloche (bell)*Aile (wing) Avion (plane) Bombe (bomb) Bouche (mouth)[herbe (grass)]*Ceinture (belt) *Cravate (neck-tie) *Doigt (finger) *Disque (record)*Cerf (stag) Cube (cube) Dièse (sharp) Douche (shower)[cierge (candle)]Cible (target) Crabe (crab) Fraise (strawberry) Film (film)Cintre (coat-hanger) Cheval (horse) Gland (acorn) Gourde (water bottl*Cygne (swan) Carte (ring) Dauphin (dolphin) Urne (urn)[cirque (circus)]Enclume (anvil) Licorne (unicorn) *Luth (lute) Louche (soup ladle)

[lynx (lynx)]Gilet (vest) Gomme (rubber) *Paon (peacock) *Poulpe (octopus)*Girafe (giraffe) *Grenade (grenade) Noeud (knot) Niche (kennel)Hache (axe) Bague (ring) Lampe (lamp) *Palme (flipper)Hamac (hammock) Biche (doe) Plante (plant) Poule (hen)Harpe (harp) Lime (nail-file) *Poing (fist) Prune (plum)

[plat (dish)]Hibou (owl) Borne (road sign) Tronc (trunk) Tarte (pie)Klaxon (horn) Banane (banana) Tank (tank) Torche (torch)Oeil (eye) Ongle (nail) Raie (ray) Ruche (beehive)

Oeuf (egg) Ours (bear) Tasse (cup) Tigre (tiger)

ss)

WRITTEN PICTURE NAMING 717

APPENDIX 3—continued

Oignon (onion) Orgue (organ) Noix (walnut) Moto (motor bike)*Phare (beacon) Pipe (pipe) Loup (wolf) Lune (moon)[cercle (circle)]Phoque (seal) Panier (basket) *Poêle (fryer) Loupe (magnifying glaQuille (skittle) Dragon (dragon) *Mètre (meter) Mouche (fly)

[membre (member)]Scie (saw) Luge (sledge) Peigne (comb) Poche (pocket)*Wagon (wagon) *Violon (violin) *Puits (well) Plume (feather)

[pull (pullover)]

Note. The approximate English translation is given in parentheses. Items marked with an “*” were not included in Exper-

iment 5. Items in square brackets correspond to nonhomophonic words used in Experiment 5.

APPENDIX 4

Stimuli for Experiment 4

High-frequency words Low-frequency words

Consistent Inconsistent Consistent Inconsistent

Poche (pocket) Train (train) Fugue Bêche (spade)(running away from

home)Lune (moon) Type (type) Bave (dribble) Zèle (zeal)Larme (tear) Froid (cold) Prune (plum) Crêpe (pancake)Monde (world) Frère (brother) Bribe (scrap) Dièse (sharp)Crise (crisis) Pièce (room) Crabe (crab) Flair (scent)Riche (rich) Cœur (hear) Louve (she-wolf) Flash (flash)Double (double) Oeuvre (work) Charte (charter) Gendre (son-in-law)Proche (near) Grosse (big) Torche (torch) Glaire (glair)Ligne (line) Femme (women) Digue (dam) Gland (acorn)Libre (free) Règle (ruler) Bulbe (bulb) Kyste (cyst)Pointe (wire nail) Membre (member) Pioche (pick) Moelle (marrow)Juge (judge) Fils (son) Luge (sledge) Môme (kid)Bouche (mouth) Prêtre (priest) Poutre (beam) Phoque (seal)Bonne (maid) Neige (snow) Biche (doe) Plomb (lead)Page (page) Rêve (dream) Ours (bear) Pull (pullover)Nuage (cloud) Style (style) Niche (kennel) Score (score)Rouge (red) Plein (full) Arche (arch) Snack (snack)Mouche (fly) Plaire (to please) Fougue (heat) Suaire (shroud)Mode (fashion) Rôle (role) Tube (tube) Tank (tank)Arme (weapon) Sens (direction) Tige (trunk) Zinc (zinc)

parentheses.

nic

lip.)li

J.tic

D.

drd

spelling. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psy-

Note. The approximate English translation is given in

REFERENCES

Ans, B., Carbonnel, S., & Valdois, S. (1998). A connectioist multiple-trace memory model for polysyllabword reading.Psychological Review, 105,678–723.

Aitchison, J., & Todd, P. (1982). Slips of the mind and sof the pen. In B. N. Chir & W. von Raffler-Engel (EdsLanguage and cognitive styles: Patterns of neuroguistic and psycholinguistic development(pp.180–194). Swets and Zeitlinger B. V.-Lise.

Assal, G., Buttet, J., & Jolivet, R. (1981). Dissociationsaphasia: A case report. Brain and Language, 13,

223–240.

-

s,n-

in

Bachoud-Lévi, A.-C., Dupoux, E., Cohen, L., & Mehler,(1998). Where is the length effect? A cross-linguisstudy of speech production. Journal of Memory andLanguage, 39,331–346.

Barry, C. (1994). Spelling routes (or roots or rutes). In G.A. Brown & N. C. Ellis (Eds.),Handbook of spelling:Theory, process and intervention(pp. 27–49). Chich-ester: Wiley.

Barry, C., & Seymour, P. H. K. (1988). Lexical priming ansound-to-spelling contingency effects in nonwo

chology, 40,5–40.

r

g

nL

3

a

p

i

-

tr-

ren,

,

t-

d

,is

of.

l,.

er-

or-

r-

heys-

l

e-rs.

),

).s-

y,

irelit-ecy.

718 BONIN, PEEREM

Baxter, D. M., & Warrington, E. K. (1987). Transcodinsound to spelling: Single or multiple sound unit corspondences? Cortex, 23,11–28.

Bock, J. K. (1996). Language production: Methods amethodologies. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3,395–421.

Bonin, P., & Fayol, M. (2000). Written picture naminWhat representations are activated and when? Memory& Cognition, 28,677–689.

Bonin, P., Fayol, M., & Gombert, J. E. (1997). Role phonological and orthographic codes in picture namand writing: An interference paradigm study. CurrentPsychology of Cognition, 16,299–320.

Bonin, P., Fayol, M., & Gombert, J. E. (1998). An expemental study of lexical access in the writing and naing of isolated words. International Journal of Psy-chology, 33,269–286.

Bonin, P., Fayol, M., & Peereman, R. (1998). Masked fopriming in writing words from pictures: Evidence fodirect retrieval of orthographic codes. Acta Psycholog-ica, 99,311–328.

Bosman, A. M. T., & Van Orden, G. C. (1997). Why spelliis more difficult than reading? In C.A. Perfetti,Rieben & M. Fayol (Eds.),Learning to spell: Researchtheory, and practice across languages(pp. 173–194).London: Erlbaum.

Brown, A. S. (1988). Encountering misspellings aspelling performance: Why wrong isn’t right. Journalof Educational Psychology, 4, 488–494.

Bub, D., & Kertesz, A. (1982). Evidence for lexicographprocessing in a patient with preserved written over osingle word naming. Brain, 105,697–717.

Cohen, J., McWhinney, B., Flatt, M., & Provost, J. (199PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designand controlling experiments in the psychology labotory using Macintosh computers. Behavior ResearchMethods, Instruments, & Computers, 25,257–271.

Coltheart, M., & Rastle, K. (1994). Serial processing reading aloud: Evidence for dual-route models of reing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Peception and Performance, 20,1197–1211.

Content, A. (1991). The effect of spelling-to-sound regulity on naming in French.Psychological Research, 53,3–12.

Content, A., & Peereman, R. (1992). Single and multiprocess models of print to sound conversion. In J. Agria, D. Holender, J. Morais, & M. Radeau (Eds.),Ana-lytic approaches to human cognition(pp. 213–236).Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Content, A., & Radeau, M. (1988). Données statistiquesla structure orthographique du français. Cahiers dePsychologie Cognitive (European Bulletin of CognitPsychology), 8, 399–404.

Cortese, M. J. (1998). Revisiting serial position effectsreading. Journal of Memory and Language, 39,652–665.

Cutting, J. C., & Ferreira, V. S. (1999). Semantic and phological information flow in the production lexicon

nt

AN, AND FAYOL

ge-

nd

:

ofing

ri-m-

rmr

g.

,

nd

icral

).ingra-

inad-r-

r-

lele-

sur

ve

in

no-

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25,318–344.

Dixon, M., & Kaminska, Z. (1997). Is it misspelled or is imispelled? The influence of fresh orthographic infomation on spelling. Reading and Writing, 9, 483–498.

Ehri, L. C. (1997). Learning to read and learning to spell aone and the same, almost. In C. A. Perfetti, L. Riebe& M. Fayol (Eds.),Learning to spell: Research, theoryand practice across languages(pp. 237–269). London:Erlbaum.

Ehri, L. C., & Wilce, L. S. (1982). The salience of silent leters in children’s memory for word spellings. Memory& Cognition, 104,155–166.

Ellis, A. W. (1982). Spelling and writing (and reading anspeaking). In A. W. Ellis (Ed.),Normality and pathol-ogy in cognitive functions(pp. 113–146). New York:Academic Press.

Ellis, A. W. (1984). Spelling and writing. In A.W. Ellis (Ed.)Reading, writing and dyslexia: A cognitive analys(pp. 60–85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ferrand, L., Grainger, J., & Segui, J. (1994). A study masked form priming in picture and word namingMemory & Cognition, 22,431–441.

Gentner, D. R., Larochelle, S., & Grudin, J. (1988). Lexicasublexical, and peripherical effects in typewritingCognitive Psychology, 20,524–548.

Geschwind, N. (1969). Problems in the anatomical undstanding of the aphasias. In A.L. Benton (Ed.),Contri-butions to clinical neuropsychology. Chicago: Aldine.

Glushko, R. J. (1979). The organization and activation of thographic knowledge in reading aloud. Journal of Ex-perimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfomance, 5, 674–691.

Goodman, R. A., & Caramazza, A. (1986). Aspects of tspelling process: Evidence from a case of acquired dgraphia. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1,263–296.

Hamburger, M., & Slowiaczek, L. M. (1996). Phonologicapriming reflects lexical competition. Psychonomic Bul-letin & Review, 3, 520–525.

Holmes, V. M., & Carruthers, J. (1998). The relation btween reading and spelling in skilled adult readeJournal of Memory and Language, 39,264–289.

Hotopf, W. H. N. (1980). Slips of the pen. In U. Frith (Ed.Cognitive processes in spelling(pp. 287–307). NewYork: Academic Press.

Humphreys, G. W., Lamote, C., & Llyod-Jones, T. J. (1995An interactive activation approach to object procesing: Effects of structural similarity, name frequencand task in normality and pathology. Memory, 3,535–586.

Imbs, P. (1971). Etudes statistiques sur le vocabulafrançais. Dictionnaire des fréquences. Vocabulaire téraire des XIXe et XXe siècle. Centre de recherchpour un Trésor de la Langue Française (CNRS), NanParis: Librairie Marcel Didier.

Jacoby, L. L., & Hollingshead, A. (1990). Reading stude

. essays may be hazardous to your spelling: Effects of

T

yy

a

ry

n

in

K

e

o

li

r

li

o

icin

-

ney

init

a

,th

hic

-f-

isi-In

(inor-

alics

ndh-

iony in

ndn:

n

o-

n

er-edo-

ificm

on.

n-

in-al

ef-

S.

WRITTEN PIC

reading correctly and incorrectly spelled words. Cana-dian Journal of Psychology, 44,345–358.

Jared, D. (1997). Spelling–sound consistency affectsnaming of high-frequency words. Journal of Memoryand Language, 36,505–529.

Jared, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1990). Naming multislabic words. Journal of Experimental PsychologHuman Perception and Performance, 16,92–105.

Jared, D., McRae, K., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1990). The bof consistency effects in word naming. Journal ofMemory and Language, 29,687–715.

Jescheniak, J. D., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Word fquency effects in speech production: Retrieval of stactic information and of phonological forms. Journalof Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, aCognition, 20,824–843.

Jorm, A. F., & Share, D. L. (1983). Phonological recodand reading acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 4,103–147.

Kawamoto, A. H., Kello, C. T., Jones, R., & Bame,(1998). Initial phoneme versus whole-word criterioninitiate pronunciation: Evidence based on responstency and initial phoneme duration. Journal of Experi-mental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogniti,24,862–885.

Kreiner, D. S. (1992). Reaction time measures of spelTesting a two-strategy model of skilled spelling. Jour-nal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memoand Cognition, 18,765–776.

Kreiner, D. S. (1996). Effects of word familiarity anphoneme-to-grapheme polygraphy on oral speltime and accuracy. The Psychological Record, 46,49–70.

Kreiner, D. S., & Gough, P. B. (1990). Two ideas abspelling: Rules and word-specific memory. Journal ofMemory and Language, 29,103–118.

Lennox, C., & Siegel, L. S. (1993). Visual and phonologspelling errors in subtypes of children with learndisabilities. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14,473–488.

Luria, A. R. (1970). Traumatic aphasia. The Hague: Mouton.

Margolin, D. I. (1984). The neuropsychology of writing aspelling: Semantic, phonological, motor, and perctual processes. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Pschology, 36A, 459–489.

Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Welsh, A. (1978). Processing teractions and lexical access during word recognin continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 10,29–63.

Miceli, G., & Capasso, R. (1997). Semantic errorsneuropsychological evidence for the independencethe interaction of orthographic and phonological woforms.Language and Cognitive Processes,12,733–764.

Miceli, G., Benvegnu, B., Capasso, R., & Caramazza(1997). The independence of phonological and orgraphic forms: Evidence from aphasia. Cognitive Neu-ropsychology, 14,35–69.

Miceli, G., Capasso, R., & Caramazza, A. (1999). Sublecal conversion procedures and the interaction of pho

URE NAMING 719

the

l-:

sis

e-n-

d

g

.to la-

n

ng:

y,

dng

ut

alg

dp--

-ion

asnd

rd

A.o-

logical and orthographic forms. Cognitive Neuropsy-chology16,557–572.

Morton, J. (1980). The logogen model and orthograpstructure. In U. Frith (Ed.),Cognitive processes inspelling(pp. 117–133). London: Academic Press.

Orliaguet, J. P., & Boë, L. J. (1993). The role of linguistics in the speed of handwriting movements: Efects of spelling uncertainty.Acta Psychologica, 82,103–113.

Pacton, S., Fayol, M., & Perruchet, P. (2001). The acqution of untaught orthographic regularities in French.L. Verhoeven, C. Erlbro, & P. Reitsma (Eds.),Precur-sors of functional literacy. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Pacton, S., Perruchet, P., Fayol, M., & Cleeremans, A. press). Implicit learning out of the lab: The case of thographic regularities. Journal of Experimental Psy-chology: General.

Peereman, R., & Content, A. (1999). LEXOP: A lexicdatabase providing orthography-phonology statistfor French monosyllabic words. Behavior ResearchMethods, Instruments, & Computers, 31,376–379.

Peereman, R., & Content, A. (1997). Orthographic aphonological neighborhoods in naming: Not all neigbors are equally influential in orthographic space. Jour-nal of Memory and Language, 37,382–410.

Peereman, R., Content, A., & Bonin, P. (1998). Is percepta two-way street? The case of feedback consistencvisual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Lan-guage, 39,151–174.

Peterson, R. R., & Savoy, P. (1998). Lexical selection aphonological encoding during language productioEvidence for cascaded processing. Journal of Experi-mental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognitio,24,539–557.

Pexman, P. M., Lupker, S. J., & Jared, D. (2001). Homphone effects in lexical decision.Journal of Experi-mental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognitio,27,139–156.

Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., & Pattson, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impairreading: Computational principles in quasi-regular dmains. Psychological Review, 103,56–115.

Rapp, B., & Caramazza, A. (1997). The modality specorganization of grammatical categories: Evidence froimpaired spoken and written sentence productiBrain and Language, 56,248–286.

Rapp, B., Benzing, L., & Caramazza, A. (1997). The autoomy of lexical orthography. Cognitive Neuropsychol-ogy, 14,71–104.

Rapp, B., Epstein, C., & Tainturier, M. J. (in press). The tegration of information across lexical and sublexicprocesses in spelling. Cognitive Neuropsychology.

Rastle, K., & Coltheart, M. (1999). Serial and strategic fects in reading aloud. Journal of Experimental Psy-chology: Human Perception and Performance, 25,482–503.

Rastle, K., Harrington, J., Coltheart, M., & Palethorpe,

xi-no-

(2000). Reading aloud begins when the computation ofphonology is complete. Journal of Experimental Psy-

720 BONIN, PEEREMAN, AND FAYOL

chology: Human Perception and Performance, 26,1178–1191.

Sanders, R. J., & Caramazza, A. (1990). Operation of n

o

xp

a

i

en

ng

h

pothesis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,72,95–129.

ro-

edge

d

-n

-

drrre.g,

u-

phoneme-to-grapheme conversion mechanism ibrain injured patient. Reading and Writing, 2, 61–82.

Schriefers, H., & Teruel, E. (1999). Phonological facilitatiin the production of two-word utterances. EuropeanJournal of Cognitive Psychology, 11,17–50.

Schriefers, H., Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1990). Eploring the time course of lexical access in langage duction: Picture–word interference studies. Journal ofMemory and Language, 29,86–102.

Scinto, L. F. (1986). Written language and psychologicdevelopment. New York: Academic Press.

Seidenberg, M. S. (1985). The time course of phonologcode activation in two writing systems. Cognition, 19,1–30.

Seidenberg, M. S., Waters, G. S., Barnes, M. A., & Tanhaus, M. K. (1984). When does irregular spellior pronunciation influence word recognition? Jour-nal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23,383–404.

Shankweiler, D., Lundquist, E., Dreyer, L. G., & DickinsoC. C. (1996). Reading and spelling difficulties in hischool students: Causes and consequences. Readingand Writing, 8, 267–294.

Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaing: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55,151–218.

Share, D. L. (1999). Phonological recoding and ortgraphic learning: A direct test of the self-teaching h

the a

n

-ro-

l

cal

n-g

,h

ch-

o-y-

Shelton, J. R., & Weinrich, M. (1997). Further evidence foa dissociation between output phonological and orthgraphic lexicons: A case study. Cognitive Neuropsy-chology, 14,105–129.

Snodgrass, J. C., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardizset of 260 pictures: Norms for names agreement, imaagreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journalof Experimental Psychology: Human Learning anMemory, 6, 174–215.

Starreveld, P. A., & La Heij, W. (1995). Semantic interference, orthographic facilitation and their interaction inaming tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21,686–698.

Tainturier, M. J. (1997). Les processus de production orthographique: Aspects normaux et pathologiques. [Theprocesses of orthographic production: Normal anpathological aspects] Rapport d’habilitation à dirigedes recherches (Professoral thesis). Université PieMendès France, Grenoble (unpublished manuscript)

Van Orden, G. C. (1987). A ROWS is a ROSE: Spellinsound, and reading. Memory & Cognition, 10,434–442.

Véronis, J. (1988). From sound to spelling in French: Simlation on a computer. Cahiers de Psychologie Cogni-tive, 8, 315–335.

(Received June 26, 2000)(Revision received November 27, 2000)(Published online June 20, 2001)