Serial processing in reading aloud

Reply to Zorzi (2000)

Kathleen Rastle*, Max Coltheart

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    13 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    K. Rastle and M. Coltheart n 999; see also M. Coltheart & K. Rastle. 1994) reported data demonstrating that the cost of irregularity in reading aloud low-frequency exception words is modulated by the position of the irregularity in the word. They argued that these data implicated a serial process and falsified all models of reading aloud that operate solely in parallel, a conclusion that M. Zorzi (2000) challenged by successfully simulating the position of irregularity effect with such a model. Zorzi (2000) further claimed that a reanalysis of K. Rastle and M. Coltheart's (1999) data demonstrates sensitivity to graphemephoneme consistency (which he claimed was confounded across the position of irregularity manipulation; rather than the use of a serial process. Here, the authors argue that M. Zorzi's (2000) reanalyses were inappropriate and reassert that K. Rastle and M. Coltheart's (1999) findings are evidence for serial processing.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)1232-1235
    Number of pages4
    JournalJournal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
    Volume26
    Issue number3
    Publication statusPublished - Jun 2000

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Serial processing in reading aloud: Reply to Zorzi (2000)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this