TY - JOUR
T1 - The integration of information across lexical and sublexical processes in spelling
AU - Rapp, Brenda
AU - Epstein, Cathy
AU - Tainturier, Marie Josèphe
N1 - Funding Information:
Requests for reprints should be adrdeedstosBrenda Rapp, Cognitive Science Dept, Johns Hopkins Universi,tBy ae,ltimor MD221,US1A8(Eil:mbrenda@mail.a cog.jhu.edu). This work was made posseiwitbh thle support of NIMH grant R29HM78 5awar5de5d to the first ahur asotwell as with the suorpt of apgrant from the Programme de Recherche de l’Agence pour les Sccs Seiocialeesnet Humaines, Région Rhone-Alpes (ARASSH) awarded to the first and third authors. We are grateful for the many very helpful comments and feedbk oan eacrlier drafs t of ths paiper provided by Michael McloCskey and Jocelyn Folk. Our deepest apprecinogoieas to tLAT and his wife, from whom we have learned many lessnso, the least of which concern spellign.
PY - 2002
Y1 - 2002
N2 - We report on a brain-injured subject, LAT, who made phonologically plausible errors in word spelling (e.g., "bouquet" spelled as BOUKET). Although many of his errors are phonologically plausible they contained low-frequency (yet lexically correct) spellings (/ei/ spelled as ET in BOUKET). Because these errors are phonologically plausible they do not appear to have been generated by the lexical process, yet because they contain low probability, lexically correct elements they do not appear to be have been generated by the sublexical process. We present analyses that specifically support the conclusion that many of LAT's phonologically plausible responses to word stimuli consist of the integrated output of elements generated by both the lexical and sublexical processes. This evidence constitutes strong support for the notion that lexical and sublexical processes share information during the course of spelling a familiar word.
AB - We report on a brain-injured subject, LAT, who made phonologically plausible errors in word spelling (e.g., "bouquet" spelled as BOUKET). Although many of his errors are phonologically plausible they contained low-frequency (yet lexically correct) spellings (/ei/ spelled as ET in BOUKET). Because these errors are phonologically plausible they do not appear to have been generated by the lexical process, yet because they contain low probability, lexically correct elements they do not appear to be have been generated by the sublexical process. We present analyses that specifically support the conclusion that many of LAT's phonologically plausible responses to word stimuli consist of the integrated output of elements generated by both the lexical and sublexical processes. This evidence constitutes strong support for the notion that lexical and sublexical processes share information during the course of spelling a familiar word.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036194458&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036194458&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/0264329014300060
DO - 10.1080/0264329014300060
M3 - Article
C2 - 20957529
AN - SCOPUS:0036194458
VL - 19
SP - 1
EP - 29
JO - Cognitive Neuropsychology
JF - Cognitive Neuropsychology
SN - 0264-3294
IS - 1
ER -