PubMed · 10884020
Serial processing in reading aloud: reply to Zorzi (2000).
Abstract
K. Rastle and M. Coltheart (1999; 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 grapheme-phoneme 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.
Explore related subjects
Keep this discovery
Explore connections, maps & timelines
K Rastle, M Coltheart. 2000. Serial processing in reading aloud: reply to Zorzi (2000).. https://doi.org/10.1037/%2F0096-1523.26.3.1232
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.