Exploring the dynamics of the visual word recognition system: Homophone effects in LDT and’naming
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Homophone effects, involving longer response latencies for homophones (e.g., FEAT) than for matched control words (e.g., FLIP) in the lexical decision task (LDT), have now been observed in a number of studies and have provided a useful means of investigating the dynamics of the visual word recognition system. In the present study we furthered that investigation by examining whether homophone effects are observed for homophonic words that differ in morphological structure from their homophone mates (e.g., BILLED/BUILD), and whether homophone effects can be observed in naming tasks. Results showed null homophone effects for morphologically different homophones like BILLED, under conditions where homophone effects for morphologically similar homophones (e.g., FEAT/FEET, WEIGHTED/WAITED) were substantial (Experiments 1 and 3). Results also showed small but significant homophone effects in naming (Experiment 2). Implications for models of visual word recognition are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it