↓ Skip to main content

Lexical Stress and Linguistic Predictability Influence Proofreading Behavior

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Lexical Stress and Linguistic Predictability Influence Proofreading Behavior
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00096
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lindsay N. Harris, Charles A. Perfetti

Abstract

There is extensive evidence that the segmental (i.e., phonemic) layer of phonology is routinely activated during reading, but little is known about whether phonological activation extends beyond phonemes to subsegmental layers (which include articulatory information, such as voicing) and suprasegmental layers (which include prosodic information, such as lexical stress). In three proofreading experiments, we show that spelling errors are detected more reliably in syllables that are stressed than in syllables that are unstressed if comprehension is a goal of the reader, indicating that suprasegmental phonology is both active during silent reading and can influence orthographic processes. In Experiment 1, participants received instructions to read for both errors and comprehension, and we found that the effect of lexical stress interacted with linguistic predictability, such that detection of errors in more predictable words was aided by stress but detection of errors in less predictable words was not. This finding suggests that lexical stress patterns can be accessed prelexically if an upcoming word is sufficiently predictable from context. Participants with stronger vocabularies showed decreased effects of stress on task performance, which is consistent with previous findings that more skilled readers are less swayed by phonological information in decisions about orthographic form. In two subsequent experiments, participants were instructed to read only for errors (Experiment 2) or only for comprehension (Experiment 3); the effect of stress disappeared when participants read for errors and reappeared when participants read for comprehension, reconfirming our hypothesis that predictability is a driver of lexical stress effects. In all experiments, errors were detected more reliably in words that were difficult to predict from context than in words that were highly predictable. Taken together, this series of experiments contributes two important findings to the field of reading and cognition: (1) The prosodic property of lexical stress can influence orthographic processing, and (2) Predictability inhibits the detection of errors in written language processing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 5 19%
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Student > Master 3 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 7 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 44%
Linguistics 4 15%
Sports and Recreations 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Engineering 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 June 2016.
All research outputs
#17,784,649
of 22,844,985 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,495
of 29,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#273,196
of 400,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#371
of 471 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,844,985 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,853 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 400,364 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 471 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.