bitmap ,

.r.’!'.

‘0:
.v‘O 3..)

.ln|

.oe ...., . ...

1.! o

if 17.. 15

..v0.... :-
I'll

x9.-I..¢i

‘s.ol .l

27;...» x

 

-7! 1|. I l.
I O l'
1 :2) a I‘. I r
35.»- . ...1
ti? , .1 a-

f;'.'

”Huh

an...”
,
VI
3.- 2;;ou niv .
Q - lJvP» .
5 , ‘L w ,
”.11”?- . _ u . . 4-5...
. liII'IV. '0-

 

lufl....r.u..
. . A. I n k y . 0 V0.” .
. .1; . . . , . wiadg (Pr
. .. u. r
«HE ‘

. .. u... ‘r

 

THENS

llllllllll‘llllllIllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

31293 00792 7357

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

THE DEVELOPMENT OF DISCOURSE PRODUCTION:
EXPLORING THE PROCESSING MECHANISM IN WRITING,
TALKING AND READING

presented by

Alkistis Charalambous

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D degree in Audiology and Speech
Sciences

wfisdgég

Major professor

Date <9 20 ’92 flfiLQ/V

Co - Cka,.r

 

 

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

 

P’—

LIBRARY
Michigan State
L University

 

 

_J

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.

TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE

   

  

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

afiwtlmfii

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l_______

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.__T___

 

 

 

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
czlchcmmtt-o:

 

 

THE DEVELOPMENT OF DISCOURSE PRODUCTION:
EXPLORING THE PROCESSING MECHANISM IN WRITING,

TALKING AND READING

by
Alkistis Charalambous

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Audiology and Speech Sciences

1992

ABSTRACT

THE DEVELOPMENT OF DISCOURSE PRODUCTION:
EXPLORING THE PROCESSING MECHANISM IN WRITING,
TALKING AND READING

by
Alkistis Charalambous

The effect of practice -- in particular what accounts
for the effect of practice on perceptual processing and
lexical representation -- has been the focus in debates
between abstractionist and episodic theories of cognition.
Because of the relevancy of sensory input modality to both
theories, the role of modality on repetition effects has
been an issue in the study of lexical access and
representation. Proponents of each view look at the
variation of modality on repetition effects in perceptual
processing. In support of episodic theories modality change
usually reduces repetition benefits, especially in
relatively data-driven tasks such as word naming, lexical
.decision, or tachistoscopic recognition. Despite the
extensive investigation of the perceptual domain,
analogous research on the production domain is largely
absent from the literature of repetition effects.
Furthermore, developmental data on the issue are completely
lacking. This study examined the processing mechanism in
text generation in writing and speaking by fourth graders

and undergraduate students.

In Experiment 1 the effect of same and different
modality -- writing and talking -- on the magnitude of
repetition benefit was examined. Two-hundred and fifty-six
subjects, half fourth graders and half undergraduates,
learned a short passage and were then instructed to generate
it from memory twice, either both times in writing, or
in talking, or once in one modality and once in the other.

A complete cross-modality transfer effect was observed in
the performance of both fourth graders and adults. For
both production tasks, whether written or spoken from
memory, second production times were uninfluenced by whether
the first production was written or spoken.

In Experiment 2 the effects of same- and cross-modality
on repetition benefit was examined when text was copied by
writing and when text was read aloud. Repetition benefits
in the production tasks were much smaller than those in
Experiment 1. However, the repetition effects that did
occur were again uninfluenced by practice modality in either
fourth graders or adults.

The findings support an abstractionist view of the
effects of practice on writing and talking: repetition-based
learning in such production tasks occurs in the "abstract"
or "amodal" components of the semantic/lexical level of

information processing.

Copyright by
Alkistis Charalambous

1992

To people who taught me the power of thought

In memory of

my grandparents and
my brother Gennadios

and

to my parents and my brother
Telemachos

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the members of my committee
Carol Sue Englert and Paul Cooke for their help and
insightful feedback on this paper. Many thanks to
Thomas Carr, co-director, for his patience, support, and
dialectic approach for the completion of this study.
Special thanks to Leo V. Deal, my academic advisor and
chairman of the committee for his continuous support, his
caring, and concerns throughout my program.

Many thanks to the fourth graders and teachers and the
principles M. Dalla, Lynn Fuller, T. Edwards, D.
Repechowski, and Sr. Gonzales.

Finally, my thanks to my parents, family, and friends

for their support, continued love, and confidence in me.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER I: Introduction
Repetition Effects in Perception ................... 3
Theoretical Explanations of Repetition Effects ..... 4

Repetition Effects in Production Tasks -- An

Unexplored Question .......... ............ .. ........ 11
CHAPTER II: Review of Literature ... ...... .. ........... 14
Perceptual Identification Tests ..... ........ .. ..... 15
“Xical DeCiSion Tests 0 O O O O O O O O O O I I O O O O O O O O O O ...... 15

Repetition Effects and the Role of Sensory Modality 16
Repetition Effects in Amnesic Patients ............. 29
Practice Effects in the Production of Speech and

Handwriting ....... ......... . ...... .. ...... ... ...... 33

CHAPTER III: MethOd ......OOOOOOOO.....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 39

Experiment 1: Subjects ..... ......... ...... . ....... 4o
Procedure/Design .. ................ .... ............. 43
Experiment 2 ... ................ ............ ....... . 48

CHAMER IV: Results 0.0.0.000.........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 52
ExperimentIOOOOOOOI ........... ......OOOOOOOOOOOOOO 52

summary ...... ......OOOOOOOOOOOOO ........ ... 63

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Page
Experiment 2 ....................................... 66
CHAPTER V: Discussion ................................. 80
APPENDIX .. ..... . ....... ................ ................ 90
REFERENCES ............................................. 92

viii

TABLE

1.

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Design of Experiment I ........ ...... .. ...... .. 47
Design of Experiment 2 ........... ..... ....... . 51

Mean Performance Times (in Seconds) in Exp. 1
for First and Second Productions as a Function
of Practice Modality, Target Task Modality,

Repetition, and Grade Combinations ............. 61

Magnitude of Repetition Benefit in Exp. 1 as a
Function of Practice Modality, Target Task

Modality, and Age. ............................. 64

Mean Performance Times in Exp. 2 for First and
Second Productions as a Function of Practice
Modality, Target Task Modality, Repetition,

and Grade Combinations... .............. . ........ 75

Magnitude of Repetition Benefit in Exp. 2 as a

Function of Practice Modality, Target Task

Modality, and Age.................. ........ ..... 78

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE Page
Experiment 1
1. Mean Performance Times as a Function of
Repetition and Trial ............ ........ ...... 55
2. Mean Performance Times as a Function of Grade,
Repetition and Trial ........................... 56
3. Mean Performance Times as a Function of Target
Task Modality, Repetition, and Trial ............ 58
4. Magnitude of Repetition Benefit as a Function
of Practice Modality, Target Task Modality,

and Age.. ........... . ............................ 65

Experiment 2

5. Mean Performance Times as a Function of

Target Task Modality, Repetition, and Trial ..... 69
6. Mean Performance Times as a Function of

Grade, Target Task Modality, Repetition,

and Trial ....................................... 71
7. Magnitude of Repetition Benefit as a Function

of Practice Modality, Target Task Modality,

andAge. C......OOOOOOOOOOOOOO......OOOOOOOOOOOO 79

8.

LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

Basic Architecture of the Mechanism of the

Production of Writing and Talking ........

xi

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Language perception and production are important
processes for spoken and written language, and they can
change with development and practice. The effect of
practice -- and in particular what accounts for the effect
of practice on perceptual processing and lexical
representation -- has been the focus of substantial research
in recent years. But despite the extensive investigation of
the perceptual domain, analogous research on the production
domain is largely absent from the literature of repetition
effects. Furthermore, developmental data on the issue are
completely lacking. The present study addresses the issue
of the nature of the representations underlying repetition
effects in two output modalities, such as writing and
talking, and examines the representation of these processes
from a developmental standpoint.

In this chapter, first the repetition effect in
'perception tasks is explained in terms of two competing
theories: the abstractionist and the episodic. Then some

fipredictions are made concerning the magnitude of repetition

effects that derive from these two theories, focusing in
particular on what ought to happen when sensory modality is
changed between repetitions. This is followed by a summary
of available results on the actual impact of changes in
sensory modality on repetition effects. Finally, the
rationale for a study to explore the question of repetition
effects in production tasks in college students and fourth
graders is described.

The second chapter presents a review of several studies
that have investigated repetition effects in a variety of
experimental paradigms. The first two sections focus on
repetition effects and the role of sensory modality in
normal and neurological individuals. The third section of
the chapter describes a few studies of practice effects in
speech production.

The third chapter presents information regarding the
subject population and the method for the present
experiments. In chapters four and five the results of the
experiments are reviewed and discussed with particular
reference to the level of the learning mechanism that

supports repetition benefit in production tasks.

3

Repetition Effects in Perception

When a particular task is performed more than once,
there is a substantial increase in both the speed and the
accuracy of performance (Forbach, Stanners, and Hochhaus,
1974; Kirsner and Smith, 1974; Scarborough, Cortese, and
Scarborough, 1977), even though considerable time--several
hours or days--may have elapsed between the two occasions
(Jacoby, 1983; Jacoby and Dallas, 1981; Tulving, Schacter,
and Stark, 1982). This phenomenon is referred to as
repetition priming or the repetition effect.

Repetition effects are ubiquitous in all forms of human
behavior, including learning, perceptual and perceptual-
motor skills, and memory skills (Brown and Carr, 1989;
Ebbinghaus, 1885; Fitts and Posner, 1967: Keele, 1986:
Kolers, 1975; MacKay, 1982; Newell and Rosenbloom, 1981).
Repetition priming of the recognition and pronunciation of
words has been studied intensively in recent years and has
been observed in a variety of experimental paradigms. Such
tasks include lexical decisions (Kirsner and Smith, 1974;
Scarborough, Gerarld, and Cortese, 1979), word
identification (Carrol and Kirsner, 1982; Feustel, Shiffrin,
and Salasoo, 1983; Jacoby and Dallas, 1981; Morton, 1979),
‘word fragment completion (Tulving, Schacter, and Stark,
1982), reading inverted text (Kolers, 1975, 1976), and free

association (Kihlstrom, 1980).

4

Theoretical Explanations of Repetition Effects

The repetition effect in word perception has been the
focus in current debates between "abstractionist" and
"episodic" theories concerning the role of knowledge and
experience in the processing of sensory information. These
debates concern the way knowledge supports cognitive
performances such as perceptual identification and
categorization. According to the abstractionist position,
the nature of this knowledge is essentially conceptual,
consisting of general characteristics abstracted from past
experiences. The episodic account, in contrast, holds that
knowledge used to enhance performance consists of specific
memories of past experiences or "episodes." Both
perspectives regarding repetition effects are equally
important and challenging for our purpose; therefore, a
brief description of each perspective follows.

Under the "abstractionist" view, repetition effects
are attributed to activation of pre-existing lexical
representations, or knowledge structures, often called
"logogens" (Morton, 1969, 1970, 1979; Carr & Pollatsek,
1985; Monsell, 1985), that correspond to each word in a
person's vocabulary. Each logogen is equal to a word
(prototype which is activated by general sensory patterns
produced by stimulus instances of the word it represents.

.A logogen is responsible for recognizing the occurrence

5
of a word both in context and in isolation. Each logogen
has an associated threshold value which determines how much
activation is necessary for the logogen to "fire" (respond),
causing its word to be recognized or made available for
production. The idea is that repeated use facilitates the
activation of a logogen either by lowering the threshold
level of activity required for the logogen to fire or by
raising the logogen's resting level of activation (Rumelhart
and McClelland, 1981) and therefore making it easier to
perceive or produce that word on subsequent occasions. The
more frequently a logogen has been activated, the less the
evidence required to "fire" that logogen and therefore the
more easily it can be activated in the future.

The activation process may be fast or slow depending
on the various contexts in which words occur, but the
important thing is that the same abstract logogen is
activated each time. It is "abstract" in the sense that
the representation does not retain concrete information
about individual instances of the referents, such as surface
features of the stimulus; rather, it corresponds to a
prototype abstracted from past encounters with individual
stimuli. In other words, the abstract generic lexical
representations respond to any instance of a word regardless
of its context or the particular script or typeface in which
it is written. Repetition effects are believed to be

associated with mental structures representing abstract

6
lexical knowledge (Morton, 1979; Allport & Funnell, 1981).

Morton's (1969) influential "logogen model" of word
recognition as well as other abstractionist models are
characterized by the preceding description. Because of its
popularity, and hence its theoretical importance, additional
information concerning Morton's model will be presented for
better understanding of how the model can handle current
data of repetition effects. Of particular interest is the
way the model treats the possibility of cross-modality
facilitation effects. Therefore, it is also important for
this study which deals with repetition effects in two
modalities.

The model was based on a categorization system (logogen
system) and was originally created on the premise that the
production of a single word response should be mediated by
the same element irrespective of the origin of the
information which led to the response. For this reason,
according to Morton (1969), a logogen takes information
from both auditory and visual sensory analysis and from the
cognitive system. The results of visual and auditory
analyses of verbal material are fed into the same system
where they interact with contextual (semantic) information
from the cognitive system. When the amount of information
arises above threshold value, the logogen responds; and the
corresponding response is available. The model required

that whenever a logogen "fired," there would be subsequent

7
facilitation of the appropriate word. The same effect
should be found irrespective of the source of the
information which led to the response.

One important aspect of Morton's hypothesis (1969,
1970) is that a logogen for a particular word is not tied to
a specific sensory modality but rather sums relevant
information in all forms: auditory, visual, pictorial,
contextual (Morton, 1970, pp 205 - 206). Logogens were held
to be multimodal devices with respect to both input and
output.

In contrast to the abstractionist stance and the
logogen model, the "episodic" view (Jacoby, 1978, 1983;
Jacoby and Brooks, 1984; Kolers and Roediger, 1984) suggests
that the representation underlying repetition effects is not
an abstract (prototypic) entity, but it is a more concrete
entity associated to specific episodes or instances of past
experiences in which the stimulus was encountered. The
present occurrence of the stimulus acts as a memory cue to
retrieve these past experiences, and recognition is made on
the basis of the content of the retrieved episodes. Because
an episode or a specific instance of a concept is
remembered, memory is always tied to context. Within the
episodic view repetition of the same word or the same text
facilitates the retrieval process by increasing the number
<>f relevant memories available for retrieval. However,

because retrieval is sensitive to the similarity of memory

8
cue and the stored memories, perceptual recognition is
sensitive to surface form and context.

According to Jacoby and Brooks (1984), Jacoby and
Hayman (1987), and Whittlesea and Brooks (1988), the more
similar the task performances, the context, and surface form
of the repeated stimulus to its previous occurrence, the
easier it is to retrieve that occurrence and therefore the
greater the resulting repetition benefit. Based on this
similarity principle, any variation in both stimulus form
and task processing should influence the degree of
repetition effects by reducing the similarity between a
current episode and a previous episode in which the stimulus
was encountered. The more the context of the stimulus is
changed, the more attenuated any repetition efects should
be, because the second encounter will be less likely to one
retrieval of an episodic trace of the first encounter.

Given these two theoretical differences concerning the
representation underlying the repetition effect and its
generalizability, one can make some straightforward
predictions about the magnitude of repetition effects as a
function of stimulus properties and attributes. On any
strong version of the episodic account, changes between the
first and second stimuli in modality of presentation or
other aspects of perceptual format or surface form such as
‘typefont for visual stimuli or tone and voice for auditory

stimuli, should reduce the benefits that result from

9
repeating the same stimulus. Strong versions of the
abstractionist account, on the other hand, would predict
that changes in modality or typefont should matter little or
not at all to the magnitude of repetition benefit. This
last position (modality-independent representation) was
adopted by Morton (1969) in his original logogen model.

The predictions derived from these two theoretical
positions concerning the magnitude of repetition effects are
fascinating and apparently straightforward. The pattern of
current data concerning these predictions, however, is
rather mixed. With respect to variations in visual surface
form, changes in letter case between initial reading and
later fragment completion tasks (Roediger and Blaxton, 1987)
or changes from previously read normally oriented sentences
to geometrically inverted sentences (Kolers, 1973, 1975)
lead to a decrease in the amount of facilitation observed.
On the other hand, complete transfer is observed across a
change, for example, in writing systems for Hindi-Urdu
bilinguals (Brown, Sharma, and Kirsner, 1984) and for
changes from typed to handwritten surface form and vice
versa for text reading (Carr, Brown, and Charalambous,
1989).

With respect to variations in modality, the pattern of
current data concerning the previous theoretical predictions
is again mixed. Because of the importance of modality and

its relevancy to both abstractionist and episodic theories,

10
the role of modality on repetition effects has been a
favorite issue in the study of the nature of lexical access
and representation. Several investigators who attempted to
distinguish between modality-specific and modality-
nonspecific components of lexical organization by examining
the effect of auditory-visual modality shifts on the
magnitude of repetition effect reported the following:

First, some investigators have found that the
repetition effect occurs within but not across sensory
modality; the facilitation effect is entirely modality-
specific and involves an advantage of the same modality over
the different modality. This has been demonstrated in word
identification and lexical decision tasks (e.g., Clarke and
Morton, 1983, experiment 2; Jacoby and Dallas, 1981,
experiment 6; Monsell and Banich 1985; Morton, 1979; Winnick
and Daniel, 1970).

Second, other investigators have found that the
within-modality effect is greater than the cross-modality
effect, yet significant facilitation is observed even
across modality. This pattern of results has been observed
by Clarke and Morton, (1983); Monsell and Banich, (1987),
and Postman and Rosenzweig (1956). Interestingly, a
persistent and striking "asymmetry" of the pattern of cross-
‘modality facilitation has been found in some of the studies
in which cross-modality transfer was significant: transfer

from visual to auditory identification of words is larger

11

than for the converse.

Repetition Effects in Production Tasks -- An Unexplored
Question

Although these two sets of results reflect mainly the
representation underlying repetition effects on the input or
perceptual domain tasks (e.g., word recognition), one could
ask similar questions about output or production domain
tasks, such as writing and speaking.

Writing and speech, both language production
processes, have been treated by some investigators as motor
skills much more than they have been studied as an output
media for communication. This is more true for writing
which has been strangely neglected until recently. This
neglect has occurred despite the fact that writing is
one of the first means used to generate, record, and
communicate thoughts in time and space.

Very often writing skills have been believed to be
closely parasitic upon speech. A common proposal by
neuropsychologists is that in order to write a word you must
first say it to yourself, then translate that internal
string of sounds into a string of letters, and then write
those letters (Dejerine, 1914; Luria, 1970).

One cannot deny the existence of some differences
between writing and speaking, but probably similarities

iderived from some shared mechanism underlying these two

12
processes are more than might be expected. Planning to
write probably utilizes the same production processes as
speech production, though writing tends to have its own
vocabulary and style. Also, writing is less interactive
than natural speaking but still affords more opportunities
for editing; it probably diverges from speech at the point
where word spelling must be accessed.

Given these similarities and differences between
Speaking and Writing, the question then arises how these
processes are represented in our brain? How, for example,
do skilled speakers and writers retrieve from memory the
sounding or the spelling of familiar words? And how is the
repetition effect reflected in these two modalities? Is,
for instance, the benefit from repetition larger in one
modality than in the other modality? Are the practice
effects modality-specific or do we have cross-modality
effects as an analogy derived from the logogen model would
suggest? The exploration of these questions is not only of
great theoretical importance but of great value in in any
general learning situation and in disciplines such as
education, psychology, and speech - language pathology.

The purpose of this study is to focus on repetition
effects in text generation (production) tasks. The text
generation in handwriting and speaking is examined in
individuals at two age levels: undergraduate students and

fourth graders. The study includes two experiments.

13
Experiment 1 examines the effects of modality and
modality change on the magnitude of repetition benefits,
both when written text is being generated from memory and
when spoken text (discourse) is being generated from memory.
The study looks at the following:
1. The effect of repetition: Does skill in writing
or talking increase as a function of practice?
2. What is the magnitude of repetition benefit in
writing compared to that of talking?
3. Cross-modality facilitation: Does the effect
of practice in writing modality have any
facilitation on modality of talking and vice
versa?
4. Does repetition effect change developmentally,

and if so, how?

Experiment 2 asks the same questions as Experiment 1,
but subjects were asked -- instead of generating text -- to
copy a passage in the writing condition or to read it aloud
in the reading condition. Hence, Experiment 2 examines the
effects of same- and cross- modality conditions in the
magnitude of repetition benefits both when text is copied by

handwriting and when text is read aloud.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In the following section a review of several studies
that have investigated repetition effects in a variety of
experimental paradigms will be presented. These paradigms
include perceptual identification, lexical decision, and
word fragment completion.

The repetition effect, as mentioned earlier, refers to
the enhancing effect of a single presentation of a stimulus
on a second or subsequent test of the same stimulus item.
This enhancement is usually substantial and is evident by a
decrease in both latencies and errors for the subsequent
test with the item (Forbach, Stanners, and Hochhaus, 1974;
Scarborough, Cortese, and Scarborough, 1977).

Repetition effects can be long-lasting (over hours or
even weeks) for words but short-lived for non-words (Jacoby,
1983; Jacoby and Dallas, 1981; Scarborough et al., 1977).
They can occur equally for physically identical repetitions
of a word and for the same word repeated by a speaker of the
opposite sex, or printed in script vs type, or in different
case (Scarborough et al., 1977; Morton, 1979). The
particular conditions that determine how long they last and

ihow'widely they generalize over such departures from exact

14

15
repetitions are very important to understanding how
repetition achieves its impact.

Before the main body of this review begins, two
definitional explanations of two main paradigms used in
repetition studies will be made.

1. Perceptual identification experiments: On
perceptual identification tests -- also referred to as word
identification or tachistoscopic identification (Feustel,
Shiffrin, and Salasoo, 1983; Jacoby and Dallas, 1981) -- a
stimulus item, e.g., a string of letters, is exposed for a
brief time (typically tens of milliseconds) and the subject
is asked either to identify it or to choose the target item
from a set of alternative responses. The priming effect is
indicated by a decrease of the exposure time necessary to
identify the items or by an increase in the accuracy of
identifying items that have been recently exposed relative
to new items.

2. Lexical decision tests: On lexical decision tasks
(Forbach, Stanners, and Hochhaus, 1974; Scarborough, Gerard,
and Cortese, 1979) subjects are presented with a sequence of
strings of letters and are required to decide as quickly as
possible whether the string constitutes a real word or not;
priming is reflected by a decreased latency in making the
lexical decision on the second presentation relative to the
first and by a decrease of errors. This technique has

proved useful in exploring the storage and retrieval of

16

vocabulary (Morton, 1981).

Repetition Effects and the Role of Sensory Modality

The literature on relevant modality effects can be
divided into two ”unequal" subgroups. The first (smaller)
group includes studies showing repetition effects within but
not across modality. The repetition effect is absent, for
example, when the repetition is from written to spoken or
from spoken to written presentations. This pattern of
results has been interpreted as implying a phenomenon which
depends on a modality-specific lexical code (Allport and
Funnell, 1981).

One example of a study in which facilitation was found
only within sensory modality was an early study conducted by
Winnick and Daniel (1970). In particular, in their second
experiment these researchers used two modes of priming
responses in tachistoscopic recognition of words. In the
first stage, subjects were presented either with the picture
of the objects denoted by the word, with the definition of
the word, or with the word itself presented in cards. In
each case, the subjects were instructed to pronounce the
appropriate word as each card was presented. This was
followed by a free recall test which required the subjects
to name all the words that served as responses in the first

stage. Later, the subjects were exposed to a tachistoscopic

17
naming of the words seen in the previous conditions, without
any indication that the same words would be used. Threshold
measures were compared with thresholds for words actually
seen and for control words not used at all in the first
stage.

The recall data indicated that the words corresponding
to previously seen pictures and definitions were better
recalled than were the words seen in printed form. The
tachistoscopic identification of typed words, however,
yielded a different result. Items presented initially as
printed words were recognized with lower (better
facilitation) tachistoscopic threshold than words from
picture and definition conditions. Thus, if a subject had
seen and named the picture of a "butterfly" without having
seen the word in the training session (first phase) there
was no facilitation of the word BUTTERFLY in the test phase.
Explaining these findings, Winnick and Daniel (1970)
attributed the word priming to an "advantage where words to
be recognized appear in the same form on both initial
familiarization trials and subsequent recognition tests."
They concluded that there "appeared to be a sensitization
effect accruing from previous viewing of printed words that
did not occur where verbal responses had been evoked by
pictures or by definitions."

This differential facilitation in favor of printed

words shown in Winnick and Daniel's results had some serious

18
implications for Morton's logogen model. In its original
form the logogen model (Morton, 1969) would have predicted
cross-modality facilitation on tachistoscopic word
recognition. Accordingly, the same logogen should be
involved whether a word is being produced in response to a
picture, a definition, or its written form; all three forms
would be equivalent primers in eliciting a vocalized
response.

Given the Winnick and Daniel's data, Morton felt that
the original logogen model had to be reconsidered. This led
him and his co-workers in a series of experiments dealing
with cross-modality facilitation in tachistoscopic word
recognition. Clarke and Morton (1983) wanted to replicate
the results of Winnick and Daniel's study and to further
investigate the notion of "perceptual sensitization." They
looked at whether repetition benefit was based on the exact
visual form or whether it was related to some more abstract
representation.

In their first experiment they tested whether word
priming shown by Winnick and Daniel was due to the precise
correspondence of pre-training and recognition of stimuli.
Clarke and Morton used the same conditions (typed words and
definitions), but they omitted the picture condition since
they had evidence that it produced qualitatively similar
results to definition condition (Morton, 1979). A new

condition was also introduced in which the pretraining was a

l9
handwritten version of a word later to be seen in
typewritten form. In the first phase subjects were
presented with a list of words of similar recognition
threshold, and they were required to pronounce quickly the
appropriate word as each word was presented. In the recall
condition, the subjects were asked to remember as many of
the words they had just spoken, taking as long as they
wanted. In the final phase, the recognition stage, the
subjects were presented with a random sequence of
recognition cards with items from the four conditions
equally distributed through the list and were asked to name
them. Tachistoscopic exposure started with 10 ms and
increased until the correct response was produced.

Results replicated the Winnick and Daniel finding that
words corresponding to previously seen definitions are
better recalled than the words seen previously printed.
There was no difference between the typed and handwritten
conditions. The recognition results showed that a
handwritten word appears to be as effective a prime as a
typewritten word. In other words, the transfer from reading
a handwritten word was not significantly different from that
produced by a typewritten word in the pretraining. This led
to the conclusion that any visual presentation of a word
leads to the same facilitation effect as opposed to Winnick
and Daniel's supposition that the basic identity

facilitation effect is due to visual correspondence.

20
Instead, it was hypothesized that the input logogen system
must be abstract to a certain extent and does not
differentiate among specific visual forms of stimulus words.

Clarke and Morton continued their studies by addressing
the question of cross-modality facilitation. In experiment
two they investigated the effects of auditory priming on
subsequent visual word recognition. The pretraining was
either auditory or visual, whereas the recognition phase was
always visual. In addition, another variable was added in
the pretraining and that was the nature of the response.
This consisted of the "word opposite" and "auditory
opposite," and they were to confirm that facilitation was
dependent only upon the stimulus and not upon the response
as well. Subjects were presented alternatively with single
spoken words from a tape recorder and words typed on cards
at the rate of 1 item per sec. They were instructed either
to repeat the word, to read the word, or to pronounce the
opposite of the displayed word. Two minutes after the
training procedure, the recognition phase was carried out
using the same procedure as in Experiment 1.

Results showed no significant transfer from auditory
presentation to subsequent visual recognition, although the
means indicated a slight trend in that direction. This was
interpreted to mean that the auditory and visual inputs
could not be regarded as equivalent. In addition, the

production of an opposite seemed to have no significant

21
effect on the priming of either auditory or visual stimuli.

The data reported from Winnick and Daniel's study as
well as from Clarke and Morton's experiment lead to the
conclusions that neither the naming of pictures nor the
completion of definitions have any effcet upon visual
recognition. Presenting a word in the visual modality
facilitates later recognition in the same modality, but
saying the word or hearing it has no such priming effect.
That is, there is no cross-modal facilitation.

Morton (1979) has interpreted these kinds of results in
terms of repetition priming in modality-specific logogens.
In light of these data, a separation of the visual input
system from the phonological lexicon and from the auditory
input system was demanded (Clarke and Morton, 1983): A
"visual input logogen system" for recognizing written words,
an "auditory input logogen system" for recognizing spoken
words, and an ”output logogen system" for producing spoken
words. By this account, the cause of the repetition effect
can be considered, but an experience of a word will prime a
later experience only if the two accounts activate the same
internal logogen system.

The modality-specific nature of repetition effect was
further supported by Ellis (1982) and Gipson (1984). These
researchers have reported experiments in which hearing a
word facilitated later auditory recognition, although

reading the word did not facilitate auditory recognition. A»

22
significant within-modality transfer was found but not
between modality transfer from visual study to auditory
perceptual identification at all.

Ellis (1982) wanted to replicate the claim that
repetition priming is a modality-specific phenomenon.
Subjects in his study were pretrained on experimental words
by matching each word to one of three definitions that they
had read silently. The pretrained words were presented in
one of three conditions: conventionally spelled; phonically
but not conventionally spelled; or auditorily (containing
only the definitions). The same words were later shuffled
randomly with new filler words and presented auditorily for
recognition in a background of white noise.

Analysis of the results showed a significant
interaction between condition and type of word (experimental
vs. fillers). Only the auditory pretraining condition led
to significantly improved auditory recognition of the
experimental words when compared with the recognition scores
of a control group that was given no pretraining of any
sort. The finding that identification of a word was
facilitated by having recently heard that word but not by
having read it confirms, as Ellis noted, the modality-
specific nature of repetition effect.

This pattern of results -- that is, repetition effect
within-modality but not across modality -- has also been

obtained in lexical decision studies (Scarborough, Gerard,

23
and Cortese, 1979) and word identification studies (Jacoby
and Dallas, 1981). Jacoby and Dallas (1981) in a series of
experiments investigated the effects of study on perceptual
identification performance. The results of these
experiments revealed that study of a word influences
perceptual identification even when 24 hours intervene
between study and test.

In experiment six Jacoby and Dallas (1981) investigated
the effect of perceptual similarity between the study and
test version of a word. The importance of physical
information was tested by manipulating the modality of
presentation between study and test. They had subjects
study words in either visual or auditory modality and then
try to identify visually degraded words. It was found that
there was substantial priming on the visual test for
visually studied words but not for auditorily studied words.

Though a number of studies fall into the category first
described in which priming is restricted entirely to the
within-modality situation, a more common pattern of results
in studies of repetition effects is to observe a "gradient"
of priming. That is, there is more repetition effect within
a modality than across modalities, but there is significant
priming even across modalities.

Postman and Rosenzweig (1956) investigated the effects
of training on the visual and auditory perceptual

recognition of verbal stimuli. Specifically, they wanted

24
to see how specific the effects of repetition are to the
sense-modality used during the training (i.e., what is the
degree of transfer from visual training to auditory
recognition and vice versa).

Four experimental groups (25 subjects in each group)
were presented with nonsense syllables in the training phase
and then tested for recognition of these syllables and other
three letter English words. A different group was assigned
for each of the four experimental conditions of training and
testing. Subjects receiving visual training wrote down each
of the stimuli projected on a screen for 1 sec., whereas
subjects receiving auditory training repeated each word
aloud that was presented from a tape recorder. For the
visual recognition test, the test-items were presented seven
times tachistoscopically under different intensities of
illumination and recognition thresholds. For the auditory
test, the items were presented six times in conjunction with
different degrees of masking noise. During the recognition
test, all groups made their responses in writing.

Analysis of threshold data demonstrated that frequency
of past experience is a significant determinant of both
visual and auditory recognition and transfer effects across
modalities. When the same sense-modality was involved in
both training and test, the effects of practice were more
pronounced than when there was a change in modality.

Interestingly, the transfer-effects were not symmetrical:

25
there was more transfer from visual training to auditory
perceptual recognition than conversely. The visual test
following the auditory training showed only small and
insignificant differences in threshold. The advantage of
transfer from visual study to auditory recognition was
interpreted as the result of a possible mediating mechanism
suggested by the fact that subjects tend to say the visually
presented words to themselves during study.

Priming effects within and across modalities were the
focus of a series of experiments Monsell carried out in
collaboration with Banich (Monsell and Banich, 1982;
Monsell, 1985).

In two of their experiments (5 and 6) subjects were
presented with four types of priming trials which all
involved visual display of a number of incomplete sentences.
The sentences were either rote-proverb type phrases or quasi
definitions. In the first two conditions the subjects were
required to indicate whether a visual or auditory word
presented one second after the displayed sentence belonged
in the sentence or not. On the other two conditions (write
and say) the subjects generated the missing word blind or
spoke the missing word. The priming phase was immediately
followed by a visual lexical decision for experiment 5 and
auditory lexical decision for experiment 6. The lexical
decision words included new words and words already used

during the priming phase.

26

In experiment 7 the same procedure was used as in
experiment 6 except that instead of "saying" the missing
word, subjects were required to "mouth" it completely
silently. The experimental task was auditory lexical
decision.

Monsell and Banich reported a "strong" cross-modal
priming effect for auditory lexical decision but none for
visual lexical decision. Priming effect in the visual
lexical decision task was significant only when tested words
had been previously presented visually (read), but the
effect in the other cross modality conditions was close to
zero. In contrast, auditory lexical decision time was
significantly facilitated by any modality, even writing; the
effects observed of hearing or saying the words were
significantly greater than seeing or writing it.

The other interesting finding was that silently
mouthing the word had a strong facilitative effect on later
auditory lexical decision (just as much as saying the word
out loud). The writing effect also had a significant effect
though it had significantly weaker effects than the within
modality (auditory) condition.

In summary, Monsell and Banich showed facilitation of
auditory lexical decision by prior generation of the word to
complete sentence, whether the word was mouthed silently,
spoken aloud or written blind. Monsell and Banich in

contrast to Morton argued that priming may take place in a

27
phonological processing system used in both the perception
and production of words.

Clarke and Morton (1983) in their third experiment
examined auditory-to-visual priming in a way that would
reduce the contribution of "sophisticated guessing." In the
priming phase of the experiment the subjects were presented
with words and were asked to rate their imaginability on a
five point scale. Half of the words were presented visually
and half auditorily, the two modalities alternating. In the
test phase subjects were presented with experimental words
on a tachistoscope. Of these words, one third had been
presented auditorily in the priming phase, one third had
been presented visually, and the last third constituted the
control stimuli (neither seen nor heard). The subjects were
strongly encouraged not to guess their responses. The test
stimuli were presented at a tachistoscopic exposure duration
that was adjusted to give a performance level of about 40%
correct.

Results showed a significant cross-modality transfer.
The facilitation from prior auditory experience of a word to
subsequent visual recognition was significant, but it was
small compared to visual-visual facilitation.

A partial transfer effect (or intermediate) under
intermodality conditions has been reported in the
literature. Kirsner and Smith (1974) compared intramodality

(IM) and cross-modality facilitation effects using auditory

28

and visual presentation of isolated words in a lexical
decision task. They wanted to see whether the degree of the
processing involved in reading a visually presented word was
specifically visual or whether it was shared with auditory
word recognition. To do this, Kirsner and Smith examined
transfer from one modality to the other in a lexical
decision task by repeating a word either in the same
modality (visual - visual) or in different modality
(auditory - visual). The subjects were presented with
two-syllable nouns (half of which were common English
words) for word/nonword categorization. Each item was
presented twice for 0.5 sec. with a rate of presentstion of
4 sec/item either in the same as its original presentation
or in a different modality. The decision task was to decide
accurately and quickly whether each stimulus was an English
word.

Kirsner and Smith reported an "intermediate"
repetition effect under intermodality conditions. The
results showed that cross-modality repetition did facilitate
processing but not as much as within-modality repetition.
Repetition facilitation was greater in the intramodality
conditions for both words and nonwords, whereas facilitation
was reduced in the cross-modality condition for words and
was absent from this condition for nonwords. As the authors
noted, their results suggest a substantial degree of

specialization by modality in the encoding mechanisms for

29

word recognition.

Repetition Effects in Annesic Patients

The issue that has been raised by several investigators
as to whether across-modality repetition effect is a
modality specific phenomenon (Clarke and Morton, 1983;
Scarborough et al., 1979) has been explored in studies of
amnesic patients as well.

Studies on new learning capabilities in amnesic
patients of various etiologies have provided considerable
evidence that this population preserves not only the
capacity for learning perceptual-motor skills (Brooks and
Baddeley, 1976; Cohen and Squire, 1980) and cognitive skills
(Squire and Frambach, 1990) but also the capacity for
repetition priming as well (Shimamura, 1986; Tulving and
Schacter, 1990). Interestingly, amnesic patients exhibit
normal priming effects despite being severely impaired on
tests of recognition memory; that is, their performance on
word completion tests or other word identification tests can
be facilitated by prior exposure to test words in the same
way as in normal subjects (Graf, Squire, and Mandler, 1984;
Graf, Shimamura, and Squire, 1985; Jacopy and Whitherspoon,
1982; Weiskrantz, 1968, 1970, 1974). In addition, in some
studies -- and in particular in Graf, Shimamura, and
Squire's study -- the amnesic patients showed priming

effects in both within and across sensory modalities.

30

Graf, Shimamura, and Squire (1985) addressed the
question as to whether amnesic patients with Korsakoff
syndrome demonstrate normal priming effect when there is no
or little overlap of sensory and perceptual information
between study stimulus and test cues. In their first
experiment they compared priming effects in amnesic patients
and control subjects under within - and cross-modality
conditions in a word stem completion tasks. Subjects were
presented twice with a study list of words, either visually
or auditorily; and then they received both a free recall and
a word completion test. On the word completion task
subjects were shown the initial three letters of a word as
cues (old or new words) and were asked to complete the cues
with the first words that came to mind. Results showed that
average free recall of words was lower for amnesics than for
the controls; however, a similar percentage of words was
recalled under within- and cross-modality conditions by each
subject group.

On the word completion test the magnitude of priming
was similar across all the subject groups indicating that
amnesic patients exhibit normal priming effects, despite
severe impairment in recall. All groups exhibited
significant priming effect in both within and across
modality conditions, but the magnitude of the effects was
greater under the within modality condition. These priming

effects -- as the authors indicated -- were consistent with

31
the findings of other studies (e.g., Graf and Mandler, 1984;
Kirsner, Milech, and Standen, 1983; Roediger and Blaxton,
1983).

Priming across sensory modalities has been considered
by some investigators as an "artifact" mediated by subject's
tendency to employ visual imaging strategy, for
example oral presentation of study words. To rule out any
possibility that subjects might image the test cues during
presentation of the study list, Graf et al. carried out a
second experiment in which they assessed priming for
category exemplars ( e.g., apple, orange). The experiment
was designed to essentially exclude any sensory and
perceptual overlap between study items and test cues. In
this experiment the subjects received two study-test trials,
each of which involved the presentation of single words
followed by a word production test and a free recall test.
For the word production test the subjects were provided with
category names as test cues (e.g., fruit), and they were
asked to produce the first exemplars that came to mind.

Results showed that amnesic and control subjects
exhibited equivalent and significant priming effects of
category exemplars. These findings, as Graf et a1. (1985)
suggested, ”strengthen the evidence for priming across
sensory modalities by showing normal and significant
priming effect in amnesic patients," even when there is no

overlap in sensory/perceptual information between study

32
lists and text cues. They concluded that the findings of
their study, as a whole, indicated that amnesics preserve
not only modality-specific sensory and perceptual processes,
but they can also preserve capabilities that mediate the
transfer of information across modalities.

Priming effects have also been found in amnesic
patients for newly acquired materials such as unrelated
paired associated (Graf and Schacter, 1985; Moscovitch,
Winocur, and McLachlan, 1986), but not all amnesic patients
showed priming for novel information (Cermak, Talbot,
Chandler, and Wolbast, 1985; Diamond and Rozin, 1984).
Moscovitch et al. (1986) conducted a study in which severe
memory-impaired people with Alzheimer's disease and other
neurological disorders, young people and elderly people
served as subjects. Subjects were required to read
sentences aloud as quickly as possible without making any
mistakes and then to distinguish old sentences that they had
read previously from new ones. The sentences were read in
normal or in inverted script at initial presentation, 1 to 2
hour later, and 4 to 14 days later. The transformation
involved a 180 rotation of each letter about its vertical
axis which preserved a left-to-right direction in reading.

In general, all groups tested showed a similar pattern
of improvement in reading transformed scripts; all groups
read repeated old sentences faster than new sentences.

Retention as measured by reading time paralleled recognition

33
performance in that items that were read most quickly were
recognized best. In people with memory disorders, however,
a dissociation between these two tests was observed.
Although this group demonstrated a reading time similar to
that of the other groups, they could not distinguish old
from new items even at short delays. Moscovitch et a1.
(l986)concluded that the fact that old sentences were read
most quickly and that reading time of new sentences improved
indicated retention of item specific information as well as
the acquisition and retention of general skills in the

impaired population.

Practice Effects in the Production of Speech and
Eandwriting.

Research on the practice effect in speech production --
the effect that can be defined as the increase in rate of
producing a sentence as a result of practice (MacKay and
Bowman, 1969) -- is rather limited as opposed to studies of
other skills (e.g., perceptual skills). Some of the reasons
for this limitation may be attributed to methodological
difficulties and theoretical issues on the topic. Studies
of practice effects in speech production have been
concentrated for the most part on movement and muscle
control in different types of skills, ignoring the

underlying mental processes that are involved in the control

34
of the muscle movements. As MacKay (1982) noted, however,
the major effects of practice on the fluency of skilled
behavior "are usually taking place at this mental level"
rather than at the level of muscle movement.

MacKay and Bowman (1969) carried out several
experiments that focused on the repetition effect in speech
production at the phonological, syntactic, and semantic
levels. German-English bilinguals were presented with
sentences typed on an index card, and they had to produce
each sentence as fast as possible. Following a 20 sec.
pause, the sentence was presented again for a total of 12
repetitions of the same sentence. Half of the sentences
were in English and half in German; there were three
different types of material: normal sentences, scrambled
sentences, and nonsense strings.

MacKay and Bowman found that practice had a significant
effect for all three conditions. The rate of speech was 15%
faster for the last four than the first four practice trials
even though the subjects were always trying to speak at
their maximum rate.

After practicing each sentence twelve times, the
subjects received a transfer sentence condition in their
other language, which they again produced at maximum rate.
The transfer sentence was either a translation (with
identical meaning but different word order and phonology

from the original practiced sentence) or a nontranslation

35
(unrelated to the original practiced sentence in meaning,
syntax, and phonology; same word order). Results showed
that subjects performed the translations significantly
faster than the non-translations (2.24 sec. per sentence vs.
2.44 sec. per sentence). This finding, as the authors
concluded, indicates an effect of practice at the lexical
conceptual level and above in speech production.

MacKay (1981) investigated the effects of mental
practice on skill in speech production, as reflected in the
time to produce sentences at maximum rate. Bilingual
subjects were presented with normal sentences one at a time,
and they were required to produce a sentence as rapidly as
possible either aloud or mentally (without making any lip
movement).

The sentences differed across conditions for any given
subject but were counterbalanced across subjects. Following
a 20 sec. pause, the subjects repeated the same sentence
mentally or overtly for a total of 12 repetitions of the
same sentence at each condition. The subjects timed
themselves for their own mental repetition trials by
pressing a key as they began internal speech and another key
as they finished it.

A transfer sentence phase followed immediately the
practice phase. Transfer sentences were either a
translation of the practice sentences or a non-translation

of the practice sentence. During the transfer phase the

36
transfer sentences for both practice conditions were
produced out loud at maximal rate and repeated four times
with about 20 sec. between repetitions.

Results for the practice phase showed that the rate of
speech in both the physical (overt) and mental conditions
became progressively faster as a function of practice, even
though the subjects were always attempting to speak at their
maximum rate. Production times were significantly shorter
(faster speech) for the mental than the overt practice
condition (by about 35% on the initial trial). This finding
is in agreement with Anderson's (1982) results which also
showed that covert verbal rehearsal was faster than overt
verbal rehearsal when subjects repeated the alphabet, days
of the week, and months of the year.

The rate of speech was significantly faster for
translations than non-translations, and the degree of
transfer for the mental and physical practice condition was
equivalent. However, the transfer sentences (whether
translations or non-translations) were produced faster
following mental practice than following physical practice.

The facilitation effect was explained by MacKay under
the mental ngde hypothesis that suggests that repetition at
a mental level can facilitate the maximal rate of output.
MacKay also concluded that the similarity of the practice
and transfer effects for the physical and mental practice

conditions suggests that physical and mental practice may

37
”involve identical underlying components at some level in
the system" (MacKay, 1981, p. 280).

Studies on writing are rarely represented in the
literature of practice effect to date. One piece of
research which is closely related to the present study is
the study done by Brown et al. (1989). Their third
experiment explored the resource organization of producing
handwriting discourse. In particular, Brown et al. wanted
to see whether the contribution of content practice of text
and writing practice produced the same effects as does
content practice alone.

In the first session of the experiment they asked
subjects to copy four paragraphs, two in a legible condition
and two in a speeded condition. The subjects were asked to
practice two of the paragraphs while not practicing the
other two. Half the subjects were told to practice the
paragraphs each day by copying, whereas the other half were
told to practice the paragraphs by reading them aloud. In
the test condition for half the subjects test was the same
as the first session. The other half were asked to copy the
four paragraphs under the opposite instructions. So the
paragraphs written and practiced with an emphasis on speed
were now written legibly, and vice versa.

Writing times were measured with a stop watch and
legibility ratings were taken for all groups. Results

showed that subjects wrote faster in the second session than

38
they had in the first session, but this was as true for
unpracticed paragraphs as it was for practiced ones.

The Brown et al. study with its data and methodological
procedures can be considered as a pilot piece of work on
discource production via handwriting. The present study
goes beyond that study. It addresses the issue of the
nature of the representations underlying repetition effects
in text generation tasks in two output modalities, writing
and talking, and most importantly it examines the
representation of these processes from a developmental
standpoint. Hopefully, the pattern of the results of this
study will suggest some kind of architecture of the

mechanism involved in the process of writing and talking.

CHAPTER III

NEIEQD

In the present study two experiments were being
conducted using undergraduate and fourth-grade students.

The first experiment examined the effects of same modality
and modality change in the magnitude of repetition benefits,
both when written text is being generated and when spoken
text is generated. Subjects were asked to generate a short
passage from memory twice in these two modalities. The
second genetation of the text was either in the same
modality or in a different modality. This allowed for
influences of changing in modality on second text generation
time.

The second experiment examined the effects of same- and
cross- modality in the magnitude of repetition benefits both
when text is copied by writing and when text is read aloud.
Subjects were asked to read aloud or to copy by writing a
short passage twice. The second reading or writing was
either in the same modality or in a different modality. In
fact, the same subjects have participated in both
experiments to facilitate comparisons of repetition effects

'across experiments. The order in which each subject

39

40
participated in the Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 was
counterbalanced--half the subjects were administered
Experiment 1 first and the remaining subjects were
administered Experiment 2 first.
The design, materials and procedures for the two
experiments are almost identical, so they are described in

one Method section.

EXPERIMENT 1

Subjects

A total of two-hundred and fifty-six subjects, half in
fourth grade and half in undergraduate university classes,
participated in the study. Of the 256 subjects 124 were
males and 132 were females. The subjects consisted of 128
fourth graders and 128 adults from varied socioeconomic
levels.

The two age levels included in this study were selected
because they cover a wide range of writers, speakers and
readers who differ considerably with respect to age,
cognitive maturity, experience, and knowledge. Differences
in these characteristics are generally assumed to account
for differences in skill performance (Noble, 1978) and

organization of mental operations (Kemler, 1983).

41

The adult subjects were college students recruited from
undergraduate classes at Michigan State University. The
fourth graders were normal-achieving children selected from
elementary schools from the greater metropolitan area of
Lansing, Michigan. The names of the children were generated
from listings of students scoring between the 45 and 99
percentile on The California Test of Basic Skills, an
achievement test given annually in the school district. All
subjects were native English speakers with no evidence of
neurological disorders, emotional problems, hearing or
speech impairment including oral or motor deficit. The
subjects also exhibited normal vision with or without
correction. These determinations were made based on the
school records, the teachers' consultation, and

observations by the experimenter.

Materials

A total of four approximately short passages were used
in the two experiments. Across subjects, each passage
occurred in each condition of each experiment an equal
nummber of times. For each subject in Experiment 1, two of
the passages (henceforth identified as A and B) were
selected as stimulus material for writing and speech
generation. The passages were comparable in that they were
matched in length (approximately 30 words), familiarity, and

content difficulty to eliminate any possible confounding

42
effects that could depend on these differential
characteristics. The passages were expository and were
appropriately reconstructed so that they are interesting to
the subjects and at 3.5 grade reading level. The stimuli
had been presented in a pilot study to guarantee successful
generation of their content.

A prepared tape recorded set of the stimuli was spoken
by an adult native English speaker. The set was used in
preliminary presentations of each passage to be learned by
the subjects prior to the main experimental task. For each
of these memorized passages the subject first heard the
whole passage from audiotape and then sentence by sentence
and then was given a verbatim recall trial. The listening-
recall trials were repeated with feedback and instruction
until a criterion of 95% or more words correct was reached.
After the passage had been learned to the criterion of 95%
accuracy of verbatim recall, the main experimental task
began.

The memorization approach employed for handwriting and
speech generation was thought to be the most appropriate for
this study, as it has been used successfully in previous
speech and handwriting production studies (Bock, 1982;
Brown, McDonald, Brown, and Carr, 1988; Kelly, Bock, and
Keil, 1985). In those studies subjects were required to
reproduce content from memory rather to generate it

naturally. The application of this approach--especially in

43
a repetition study like this which deals with two output
modalities--has two main advantages. First, the fact that
all subjects have the chance to be equally exposed to the
source material enhances the availability of the words and
sentences to be written and spoken. Thus, the production
process becomes easier. Second, the memory task allows a
degree of experimental control over content of the produced
text within- and cross-modality performance. This
experimental control over content--vital for repetition
studies-- could not be possible if subjects were just

required to generate the passage naturally.

BIQQQQEEE

The subjects were tested individually in one twenty
minute session. Half the subjects were asked to generate a
passage from memory twice in two modalities: either
writing or speaking (within and across modality). The other
half were asked to generate two passages once, either in
writing or in speaking (within and across modality).

At the beginning of their text session the subjects
were told that they were participating in a study of the
organization and production of handwriting and speech. They
were also informed that production times would be recorded
during the experiment, and they were instructed to be as

fast and as accurate as possible at each task. Each session

44

began with the following instructions:
This is a study in writing and speech, and I am
interested in knowing how fast we can write and
talk. I will ask you to write (or say) the
passage you have just learned. When I say "ready-
begin” you will start writing (or talking). You
need to write (or talk) as quickly and as
accurately as possible. Try not to leave words
out or to use any extra words or sounds. When we
write we often stop and go back to read it again.
This time I would like you not to do this. If you
made a mistake you can correct it just after you
thought you made the mistake, but not before you
start a new word. You also need not to abbreviate
words when you write or talk; just write or say
the whole word. I encourage you not to worry about
spelling.

Speed and accuracy were given equal emphasis in the

instructions. After these instructions were given, the

first phase of the experiment began, followed by the second

phase (repetition).

99.81911

A separate group design was used with the groups
differing according the experimental conditions to which
they were assigned. The experimental conditions will be
referred to as W-W (first writing, second writing), T-T
(first talking, second talking), W-T (first writing, second
talking), and T-W (first talking, second writing). The W-W
and T-T conditions will be designated as "within-modality”
conditions; W-T and T-W, as "across-modality" conditions.

In each experimental condition there was one

"experimental" group and one control group (16 subjects in

45

each group) which only differed in terms of the stimulus
relation (repeated non-repeated) they received. Thus, the
experimental groups produced two repeated (R) passages in
one of the following condition combinations: WA WA or Wl3 We;
TA T, or T3 T3; W,| TA or We T37 and TA WA or TB W8, whereas the
control groups produced non-repeated passages (NR): wavy or
WA W3; TB TA or TA Tu; W, TA or WA TB; and T8 WA or TA W8).

Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the above
combination groups. There were 16 subjects in each of the
experimental groups and each of the control groups. In
assigning subjects to different groups, the same percentage
of male/female individuals were randomly assigned in each of
the modality combination conditions.

Repeared Stimulus groups: In the W-W condition half of
the subjects were required to write passage A once on a
single page and then immediately after this to reproduce the
exact passage by writing it on another page; the other half
wrote passage B and then reproduced it. In the T-T
condition, half subjects had to (recite) passage A and then
to repeat it, whereas the other half received passage B to
produce and repeat. In the W-T condition half of the
subjects wrote first and then recited passage A, whereas the
other half produced passage B in the same way. In the final
condition, T-W, passage A was spoken first followed by its

written version and passage B was produced in the same way.

46

Een;Bepeepeg_§pinnln§_grpnp§: The same stimuli
generation procedure was followed with respect to modality
combination as in the experimental groups, except that now
all the control subjects produced both passages A and B. In
each of the conditions half of the subjects produced passage
B first followed by passage A, and the other half produced
passage A first followed by passage B. The control items
provide the baseline against which any repetition effects
are assessed. (See Table 1 with further explanations.)
Experimental Task

The experimental task was to produce each passage as
quickly and accurately as possible. For all conditions,
generation times were measured with a stop watch, and the
talking mode of any condition combination was tape recorded.
This allowed identification and scoring of production errors
at a later time. The data of interest in the study were the
absolute production speed for any passage and condition
combination. Thus, response times were measured starting
when the subjects began the passage and ending when subjects
completed the passage. In fact, for estimating the
magnitude of any repetition effect, the obtained measures
fall into three categories for probe passages: a) measures
for passages primed by an encounter in the same modality; b)
measures for passages primed by an encounter in a different
modality; and c) measures not encountered (control

measures).

47

TABLE 1: Design of Experiment 1

Assignments of Passages to
Erperinental Conditions

 

O ALITY
SAME a DIFFERENT (b)

ORDER OF
LEARNING STIMULUS
STIMULUS W-W T-T W-T T-W RELATION
PASSAGES

A,B A A A A A A A A Repeated

B,A B B B B B B B B Repeated

B,A B A B A B A B A Non-Repeated

A.B A B A B A B A B Non-Repeated

 

Assignnent of Subjects to Erperimental Conditions:
Eight college students and eight fourth graders were

assigned to each of cell of the matrix of "Assignments of
Passages to Experimental Conditions."

MEASURES OBTAINED:

a = repetition in same modality

b = repetition in different modality

c = non-repetition in same modality

c = non-repetition in different modality
I T P T :

Difference between (a) and (cg) within-modality effect.

Difference between (b) and (c5) = across-modality effect.

48

EXPERIMENT 2

Experiment 2 examined the effects of same modality and
modality change in the magnitude of repetition benefit both

when text is copied by writing and when text is read aloud.

We

Subjects were the same two-hundred and fifty-six
students half in the 4th grade and half undegraduates who
participated in Experiment 1. The within Experiment group

structure was just like that in Experiment 1.

Mereriel end Proeedure

Each subject participated in one 10 minute session.
The procedures were the same as in Experiment 1, except that
now instead of generation from memory, copying of text or
reading aloud was used. For each subject, the stimulus
materials came from the two passages (henceforth designated
D and E) that were not encountered in Experiment 1. Thus,
half the subjects were asked to copy a passage (either D or
E) from a typed page twice by writing or by reading it
aloud. The other half were asked to write or read aloud two
non-repeated passages (D and E). The second production of
the text was either in the same modality or in different

modality from the first production (see Table 2).

49

For the reading condition subjects were asked to read
the passage aloud as quickly and as accurately as possible
so that others would understand. For the writing condition
instructions were the same as in Experiment 1. Subjects
were informed again that production times would be recorded
and that the spoken session would be tape recorded. They
were also told that they could listen to their voices after
they are finished.

The design used was the same as in Experiment 1. The
experimental conditions were C-C (first copying, second
copying) R-R (first reading, second reading), C-R (first
copying, second reading), and R-C (first reading, second
copying). The experimental groups copied or read two
repeated passages in one of the follwing condition
combinations: CD Co or C2 CE; R0 R0 or RE RE; CD R0 or
C,S Re; and R0 Co or Rt. Car whereas the control groups

produced non-repeated passages (CD CE or CE CD; RD RE or

RERbtcsRDorCDRE;andRECDorRDCE).

Reliepility

During the administration of the experimental task,
reliability measures were taken for response time. To
measure reliability for timing the subjects' written and
spoken passages, a second trained person independently

timed 10% of experimental sessions at each age level.

50
Reliability was calculated on a point-to-point comparison
basis. Interrater reliability for timing ranged from .93 to

.99 with a mean of .96.

51

TABLE 2: Design of Experiment 2

Assignments of Passages to
Erperimental Conditions

MODALITY

SAME ta) DIFFERENT (b)

 

 

ORDER OF
LEARNING STIMULUS
STIMULUS C-C R-R C-R R-C RELATION
PASSAGES
D,E D D D D D D D D Repeated
E,D E E E E E E E E Repeated
E,D E D E D E D E D Non-Repeated
D,E D E D E D E D E Non-Repeated

 

Assignment of Subjects to Erperimental Conditions:
Eight college students and eight fourth graders were

assigned to each of cell of the matrix of "Assignments of
Passages to Experimental Conditions."

MEASURES OBTAINED:

a = repetition in same modality

b = repetition in different modality

c = non—repetition in same modality

c = non-repetition in different modality
INTERPRETATION

within-modality effect.

Difference between (a) and (0.)

Difference between (b) and an) across-modality effect.

EXPERIMENT 1

Data Analysis

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

The production time data were analysed to examine the

issues that have been addressed in the introduction of this

paper:

1. Does

skill in Writing or Talking increase as a

function of repetition?

2. If there is repetition benefit, what is the

magnitude of this benefit in Writing compared to

that
3. Does
have
vice

4 . DOCS

of Talking?

the effect of practice in Writing modality
any facilitation on modality of Talking and
versa?

this repetition effect change developmentally,

and if so, how?

The main analysis consisted of 2x2x2x2x2 Analysis of

Variance (ANOVA). The analysis compared first and second

writing and talking production times to establish the

occurrence of repetition, target task modality, practice

52

53
modality, and grade effects. For the ANOVA the between-
subjects factors were grade level (College students or
fourth graders), repetition (repeated stimulus passage or
non-repeated), target task modality (Writing or Talking),
and practice modality (same or different). The within
subjects factor was trial (first production, second

production).

Results

For the purpose of the issues addressed in this study,
the effects of most interest are those that involve the
influence of a variable on the magnitude of the repetition
effect. The presentation of the results will begin with the
main effects of all the variables manipulated in the study,
simply to establish which ones were effective in an overall
way.

Fisrt, there was a significant main effect of

repetition, F(1,239)

55.205, p < 0.01. That is, repeated

stimulus passages (M 40.0 sec) were produced faster than
non-repeated (new) passages (M = 46.0 sec). Second, there
was a significant main effect for target task modality
(Writing or Talking), F(1,239) = 835.848, p < 0.01. Thus,
production performance was slower in Writing (M = 57.8
sec) than in Talking (M = 27.8 sec). Third, a significant

main effect for grade level was observed with fourth graders

(M = 55.0 sec) spending more time on each production than

54
college students (M = 30.0 sec), F(1,239) = 594.877,
p < 0.01. Finally, the main effect for practice modality
(whether same or different) was not significant,
F(1,239) < 1, nor was the main effect of trial, F(1,239)
< 1.

Though the main effect of Repetition is significant, it
is important to note that the interaction between repetition
and priel is the real index of the passage-specific
repetition effects that are the focus of this study.

A significant interaction was observed between stimulus
repetition and trial, F(1,239) = 41.392, p < 0.01. As
shown in Figure 1, second trial times were reduced when a
given passage was repeated, whereas they were actually
increased when the passage was new (non-repeated). Thus,
repeating a passage clearly helped production performance.
The magnitude of this repetition effect changed
developmentally as shown by the three factor interaction of
grade level, repetition status, and trial, F(1,239) = 6.751,
p < 0.01. This interaction is shown in Figure 2 where
second trial times for both College students and fourth
graders were reduced in repeated passages, whereas time was
increased in the non-repeated passages. However, the size
of these repetition effects was larger in the performance of
the fourth graders.

As we have just seen, there is a repetition effect

sensitive to developmental changes. Now the question arises

55

FIGURE 1: Mean performance Times (in seconds) in Experiment
1 as a Function of Repetition and Trial.

0—0 Non-repeated

“" Repeated

at
O

50

40

3O

20

10

Production Times (in seconds)

 

lst 2nd

Trial

56

FIGURE 2: Mean Performance Times (in seconds) in Experiment

1 as a Function of Grade Level, Repetition, and
Trial.

o———O Non—repeated
e--O Repeated

70,

so /

so .\.

4th Grade

40

O
30 o—””””””’ Adults

Production Times (in seconds)

 

lst 2nd

Trial

57
whether there is a sensitivity of these repetition benefits
to task modality. The influence of modality on the
repetition effect was tested by the interaction between
target task modality (Writing or Talking), repetition, and
trial (first or second). The observed three-factor
interaction was significant, F(1,239) = 7.348, p < 0.01. As
can be seen in Figure 3, second production times were faster
when the same passage was repeated, but the size of the
increase was larger for Writing than for Talking.

We now turn to the question of whether the effect of
practice in one modality has any facilitation on another as
yet unpracticed modality. First, the overall influence of
practice modality on repetition was tested by the three
factor interaction involving practice modality (same or
different), repetition, and trial (first or second). This
interaction was not significant, F(1,239) < 1. Second
production times were reduced when the passage being
produced was repeated and practice was in the same modality.
However, this was also true for a passage that was practiced
in a different modality. Similarly, second production
times were increased when the passage was not repeated, and
this also happened for both same-modality and different-
modality practice. If one computes the difference between
repeated and non-repeated second production times, this
difference is lgrg sec for same-modality practice and 1113

sec for different-modality -- figures that are very close in

58

FIGURE 3: Mean Performance Times (in seconds) in Experiment
1 as a Function of Target Task Modality,

Repetition, and Trial.

o_—4>Non-repeated

e—-e Repeated

Production Times (in seconds)

 

13: 2nd

Trial

59
size.

The null result of practice modality just described
collapses across target task. One can speculate whether any
modality specificity might become apparent when the two
target tasks are considered individually. This was tested
by the four factor interaction between practice modality,
target task modality, repetition, and trial. This
interaction was not significant either, F(1,239) = 1.415,

p > 0.05. Second production time in T - T condition is
quite similar to second production time in the W - T
condition, and second production time in the W - W condition
is quite similar to second production time in the T - W
condition.

With respect to the effects of practice modality, the
same pattern of results was obtained from the fourth graders
as from the adults as shown by the non-significance of the
grade x practice modality x repetiton x trial interaction,
and the grade x practice modality x task modality x
repetiton x trial interaction.

We turn first to the four factor interaction, grade x
practice x repetition x trial which tested the influence of
practice modality (same or different) on repetition for both
fourth graders and adults. This interaction was not
significant, F(1,239) < 1. Second production times for both
fourth graders and College students were reduced when the

passage being produced was repeated and practice was in the

60
same modality. However, this was also true for a passage
that was practiced in different modality.

If one computes the difference between repeated and
non-repeated second production times, this difference for
the adults is fire sec for same-modality practice and gel sec
for different-modality. Similarly, for fourth graders the
difference between repeated and non repeated second
production times is 1111 sec for same-modality practice and
lee; sec for different-modality. Obviously, these figures
of difference for same and different modality practice are
very close in size for both fourth graders and adults.

Given the null result of practice modality for both
fourth graders and adults, one can speculate whether any
developmental difference in modality specificity might
become apparent when the two target tasks are considered
individually. This, in fact, was tested by the five factor
interaction between grade level, practice modality, target
task modality, repetition, and trial. This interaction was
not significant either, F(1,239) = 1.081, p > 0.05.

As we can see in Table 3, for the adults second
production times in T - T is quite similar to second
production times in the W - T condition; and second
production times in the W - W condition is quite similar to
second production times in the T - W condition. If one
computes the difference between repeated and non- repeated

second production times, this difference is 7,40 sec when

4th GRADE ADULTS

61

TABLE 3. Mean Performance Times (in seconds) for First and

Second Productions as a Function of Practice

Modality, Target Task Modality, Repetition, and
Grade Combination.

T

STIMULUS lst

Non-Rep 12.0

Repeat 8.5

Non-Rep 15.2

Repeat 12.9

2nd

14.2

16.7

10.2

W

lst

48.7

47.2

98.5

93.7

MODALITY
- T T
2nd lst
13.0 10.0
7.9 8.5
26.7 15.1
12.6 11.9

2nd

55.2

46.9

105.2

87.1

lst

51.8

50.1

2nd

55.3

45.9

100.0 108.0

93.6

79.0

62
practice is Writing and target task modality is Talking
(W - T ) the difference is gel sec. In the W — W condition
this difference is gee sec, whereas in the T - W condition
the difference is gr; sec.
Computing the analogous difference between repeated and

non-repeated second production times for fourth graders, we

can see that this difference is 6.50 sec for T - T, and

 

isles sec for W - T. In the W - W condition the difference
between repeated and non repeated second production times is
eele sec , whereas for T - W the difference is 1&1; sec.

Despite the non—significance of the interaction, these
differences give the impression that fourth graders did show
modality specificity even though college students did not.
However, there were also baseline differences between groups
of subjects on fire; production times that need to be taken
into account. When this is done in a way that will be
described next, the impression of modality specificity
disappears.

The magnitude of the passage-specific repetition
benefit, with first-production baseline taken into account,
was measured by computing the mean difference between first
and second production times in both repeated and the non-
repeated conditions, then subtracting the difference in the
non-repeated condition from the difference in the repeated

condition. For the fourth graders this resulting repetition

benefit is 5,26 sec when practice and target modality are

63

both Talking (the T - T condition). When practice is
Writing and target task is Talking (W - T) the benefit is
grep sec. In the W - W condition this benefit is ZZIQQ sec,
whereas in the T - W condition the benefit is 1&12 sec.

Similarly, for the adults the repetition benefit is
§1§§ sec for T - T, and leg; sec for W - T. In the W - W
condition the repetition benefit is nine, whereas for T - W
the benefit is glee sec. The magnitude of repetition

benefit as a function of age, practice modality and target

task modality is shown in Table 4 and Figure 4.

§EEE§£¥

In summary, first it has been shown that repetition
improves Writing and Talking speed. This repetition effect
is sensitive to developmental changes. That is, the size of
the effect is larger in the performance of fourth graders.

Second, repetition effects are sensitive to target task
modality, and the modality difference is sensitive to
developmental changes. Both fourth graders and adults
benefited more when task modality was Writing than when it
was Talking; but even more, the effect of target task
modality was larger for fourth graders.

Third, repetition effects are not influenced by
practice modality in either fourth graders or adults. Thus,
a complete cross modality repetition effect is observed in

the performance of both fourth graders and adults.

64

TABLE 4. Magnitude of Repetition Benefit as a Function of
Practice Modality, Target Task Modality and Age.

TARGET TASK MODALITY

Talking

Writing

PRACTICE MODALITY

ADULTS FOURTH GRADERS
T - W T - W
3.85 3.52 4.26 9.26
6.49 8.49 14.83 22.3

65

FIGURE 4: Magnitude of Repetition Benefit as a Function of
Practice Modality, Target Task Modality and Age.

V—W 4th Grade
V“-V Adults

Repetition Benefit (in seconds)

 

 

First and Second Trial

66

EXPERIMENT 2

Data Analysis

The performance time data were analysed to examine the
issues of interest in Experiment 2. The issues and the
approach to the analysis are analogous to those of
Experiment 1. These issues are:

1. Does skill in Copying or Reading increase as a

function of repetition?

2. If there is repetition benefit, what is the
magnitude of this benefit in Copying compared to
that of Reading?

3. Does the effect of practice in the Copying modality
have any facilitation on the modality of Reading and
vice versa?

4. Does this repetition effect change developmentally,
and if so, how?

The analysis consisted of 2x2x2x2x2 Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA). The analysis compared first and second
copying and reading production times to establish the
«occurrence of repetition, target task modality, practice
modality, and grade effects. The between-subjects factors
in this analysis were grade level (College students or
fourth graders), repetition (repeated or non-repeated

Stimulus passage), target task modality (Copying or

67
Reading), and practice modality (same or different). The
within-subjects factor was trial (first performance, second

performance).

Results

The effects of most interest in Experiment 2 are again
those that involve the influence of a variable on the
magnitude of the repetition effect. The presentation of
results will begin with the main effects of all variables to
establish which ones were effective in an overall way.

As in Experiment 1, first there was a significant main
effect of repetition, F(1,240) = 12.672, p < 0.01. That is,
repeated stimulus passages (M = 38.0 sec) were produced
faster than non-repeated (new) passages (M = 42.0 sec).
Second, there was a significant main effect for target
task modality (Copying or Reading), F(1,240) = 775.162,

p < 0.01. Thus, performance was slower in Copying (M = 57.0
sec) than in Reading (M = 24.0 sec). A significant main
effect for grade level was also observed with fourth graders
(M = 55.0 sec) spending more time on each performance than
college students (M = 25.6 sec), F(1,240) = 639.628,

p < 0.01. The main effect for practice modality (whether
same or different) was not significant, F(1,240) < 1, nor
was the main effect of trial, F(1,240) = 1.067, MSe =

47.873, p > 2.

68

Though the main effect of repetition is significant,
the interaction between repepition and priel is the real
index of the passage-specific repetition effects that are
the focus of the study.

A non-significant interaction was observed between
stimulus repetition and trial, F(1,240) < 1. Second trial
times were very little reduced when a given passage was
repeated, whereas they were almost the same when the passage
was new (non-repeated). Thus, repeating a passage made
very little difference in the performance. This non
significant repetition effect was not influenced by grade
level as shown in the three factor interaction between grade
level, repetition, and trial, F(1,240) < 1. Again, second
production times for both College students and fourth
graders were very little reduced in repeated passages,
whereas time was slightly increased in the non-repeated
passages.

Thus, at an overall level, collapsed across target task
modality, it would appear that there were almost no
repetition benefits in Experiment 2. However, the three-
factor interaction between target task modality (Copying or
Reading), repetition (repeated stimulus passage or new), and
trial (first or second) was significant, F(1,240) = 9.062,

p < 0.01. As shown in Figure 5, this interaction indicates
that repetition benefits did occur, but they were restricted

to one of the target task modalities, Copying. Computing

69

FIGURE 5: Mean Performance Times (in seconds) in Experiment
2 as a Function of Target Task Modality,
Repetition and Trial.

80‘
70,
60

SO o-——o Non-repeated
'*——. Repeated

Production Times (in seconds)

 

lst 2nd

Trial

70
difference between repeated and non-repeated second
production times, this difference is 9121 sec for Copying
but only gel; sec for Reading.

If one takes a step further with first production
baseline taken into account, following the same procedures
as in Experiment 1, the resulting repetition benefit is fire
sec when target task modality is Copying, whereas this
benefit is :lrpg sec when target task modality is Reading.
Thus, facilitation due to repetition is restricted entirely
to Copying.

The magnitude of the repetition benefit in Copying
changed develomentally as shown by the significant four-
factor interaction of grade level, target task modality,
repetition status, and trial, F(1,240) = 6.599, p < 0.05.
This interaction is shown in Figure 6 where the size of
repetition benefit was larger in the performance of the
fourth graders, especially when target modality was
Copying.

Computing the difference between repeated and non-
repeated second production times, this difference for the
adults is zip sec when target modality is Copying and leg
sec when it is Reading. For fourth graders the difference
between repeated and non-repeated second trial times is 1211
sec when target modality is Copying and 211 sec when it is
Reading. With first production baseline taken into account,

the resulting repetition benefit for the adults is 0.96 sec

71

FIGURE 6: Mean Performance Times (in seconds) in Experiment
2 as a Function of Grade Level, Target Task
Modality, Repetition, and Trial.

Production Times (in seconds)

110,-
100
90'

70 -’

so,
so:
40
30
20

10

O 000

1st

4th Grade

2nd

Trial

Adults

o——0 Non-repeated
0—-¢ Repeated

lst 2nd

72
when target task modality is Copying and :er2 sec when
target task modality is reading. For fourth graders the
repetition benefit is 1211 sec when target modality is
Copying, whereas this benefit is green sec when target
task modality is Reading. Thus, the facilitation effects
already found to be isolated in Copying are enjoyed
primarily by fourth graders rather than by adults.

We now turn to the question of whether effect of
practice in one modality has any facilitation on another as
yet unpracticed modality. The overall influence of practice
modality on repetition was tested by the three-factor
interaction involving practice modality (same or different),
repetition, and trial. This interaction was not significant,
F(1,240) < 1.

The null result of practice modality just reported
collapses across target task. One can speculate whether any
modality specificity might be observed when the two target
tasks are considered individually. This was tested by the
four factor interaction between practice modality, target
task modality, repetition, and trial. This interaction was
not significant either, F(1,240) = 1.454, p > 0.05. Second
production time in Reading - Reading (R - R) condition is
quite similar to second production time in the Copying -
Reading (C - R) condition, and second production time in the
Copying - Copying (C - C) condition is quite similar to

second production time in the Reading - Copying (R - C)

73
condition.

With respect to the effects of practice modality, the
same pattern of results was obtained from the fourth graders
as from the adults as shown by the non-significance of the
grade x practice modality x repetition x trial interaction,
and the grade x practice modality x task modality x
repetition x trial interaction.

We start first with the grade x practice x repetition
x trial interaction which tested the influence of practice
modality (same or different) on repetition for both fourth
graders and adults. This interaction was not significant,
F(1,240) = 1.569, p > 0.05. Second production times for
both fourth graders and College students were reduced when
the passage being produced was repeated and practice was in
the same modality. However, this was also true for a
passage that was practiced in different modality.

If one computes the difference between repeated and
non-repeated second production times, this difference for
the adults is are sec for same-modality practice and leg sec
for different-modality. Similarly, for fourth graders the
difference between repeated and non repeated second
production times is lire sec for same-modality practice and
£14 sec for different-modality.

Given the null result of practice modality for both age
groups, the question arises whether any developmental

difference in modality specificity might be observed when

74
the two target tasks are considered individually. This was
tested by the five factor interaction between grade level,
practice modality, target task modality (Copying or
Reading), repetition, and trial. This interaction was not
significant either, F(1,240) = .475, p > 0.05. As it can be
seen in in Table 5, for the adults second production time in
R - R is quite similar to second production time in the
C - R condition; and second production time in the C - C
condition is quite similar to second production time in the
R - C condition.

Computing the difference between repeated and non-
repeated second production times, this difference is 11; sec
when practice and target modality are Reading (R - R). When
practice is Copying and target task is Reading (C - R) the
difference is 112 sec. In the C - C condition this
difference is ere sec, whereas in the R - C condition the
difference is 114 sec.

Computing the analogous difference between repeated and
non-repeated second production times for fourth graders, we
can see that this difference is ere sec for R - R and gee
sec for C - R. In the C - C condition the difference
between repeated and non repeated second production times is
1212 sec, whereas for R - C the difference is lee; sec.

Despite the non significance of the interaction, these
figures of difference give the impression that fourth

graders did show modality specificity, especially when

75

TABLE 5. Mean Performance Times (in seconds) in
Experiment 2 for First and Second Productions as
a Function of Practice Modality, Target Task
Modality, Repetition, and Grade Combination.

MODALITY
R - R C - R R - C C - C
STIMULUS lst 2nd lst 2nd lst 2nd lst 2nd
Non-Rep 7.1 7.1 48.8 6.7 6.5 45.6 43.5 44.4
Repeat 6.7 5.8 46.6 5.7 6.3 44.2 41.8 41.8

Non-Rep 10.4 11.3 101.0 11.1 11.2 103.5 109.4 111.9

4th GRADE ADULTS

Repeat 9.6 7.7 90.1 8.5 10.4 93.2 102.0 92.7

76

target task modality was Copying, even though College
students did not. However, taken into account the baseline
differences between groups of subjects on fire; production
times this modality specificity is not present.

The magnitude of the passage-specific repetition
benefit, with first production baseline taken into account,
was computed as in Experiment 1. For the fourth graders

this resulting repetition benefit is 2.88 sec when practice

 

and target modality are both Reading (the R - R condition).
When practice is Copying and target task modality is Reading

(C - R) the benefit is -8.75 sec. In the C - C condition

 

the repetition benefit is lire sec, whereas for the R - C
condition the repetition benefit is 2149 sec. Similarly,
for the adults the repetition benefit is 912& sec for R - R,
and :11; sec for C-R. In the C - C condition the repetition
benefit is pee sec, whereas for R—C the benefit is lrlg

sec. The magnitude of repetition benefit as a function of
age, practice modality, and target task modality is shown in

Table 6 and in Figure 7.

§EEE§£¥

In summary, the results of Experiment 2 show first that
repetition improves Copying, at least among fourth graders,
but has little effect on Reading at either grade level.

That is, although repetition benefits did occured, they were

restricted to one modality, to that of Copying; and this

77
effect of repetition on Copying was largely restricted to
the performance of fourth graders.
Second, the results show, as in Experiment 1, that
repetition effects that did occur are not influenced by

practice modality in either fourth graders or adults.

78

TABLE 6. Magnitude of Repetition Benefit as a Function of
Practice Modality, Target Task Modality and Age.

PRACTICE MODALITY

ADULTS V FOURTH GRADERS
TARGET TASK MODALITY R - C R - C
Reading 0.94 -1.2 2.88 -8.75

Copying 1.18 0.9 9.48 11.8

79

FIGURE 7: Magnitude of Repetition Benefit as a Function of
Practice Modality, Target Task Modality and Age.

v—v 4th Grade
V—V Adults

 

 

Repetition Benefit(in seconds)

 

CR RR RC CC

First and Second Trial

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

The effect of practice on perceptual processing has
been the focus of substantial research recently. But
despite the extensive investigation on the perceptual
domain, analogous research on the production domain is
scarce in the literature of repetition effects.

Furthermore, developmental data on the issue are completely
lacking.

The purpose of this study was to focus on the nature
of the representation underlying repetition effects in text
generation tasks. Text generation in Writing and Talking
was examined in individuals at two age levels:
undergraduates and fourth graders. Experiment I examined
the effects of same and different output modality on the
magnitude of repetition benefits, both when written text was
being generated from memory and when spoken text was being
generated from memory. Experiment 2 examined the effects of
same and different modality conditions on the magnitude of
repetition benefits when text was copied by writing and
when text was read aloud.

Both of these experiments support an abstractionist

position of the processes of production tasks involved in

80

81
Writing and Talking. In Experiment 1, for both production
tasks, whether Written or Spoken from memory, second
production times were uninfluenced by whether the first
production was Written or Spoken. That is, benefits of
repetition were undiminished by modality manipulation during
the practice and test phase. A complete cross-modality
repetition effect was observed, and this was exactly what an
abstractionist account would have predicted. The output in
this study shows that mature writers and speakers can
abstract across the differences in modality between Written
and Spoken text of the words' referents, so that the
learning supporting repetition benefit occurs at an
abstract, conceptual level of processing at which the two
output modalities are equivalent for the purposes of the
generation task.

This phenomenon of complete transfer of repetition
effect between written text and spoken text also occurred
for fourth graders. In fact, the benefit of repetition was
larger for fourth graders and even larger when the target
task modality was Writing. This probably can be explained
by the fact that fourth graders have less experience in
Writing and, hence, have more room for improvement.

In Experiment 2, the results are weaker as compared to
those of Experiment 1 because repetition effects were much
less in evidence. However, the repetition effects that did

occur were again uninfluenced by practice modality in either

82
fourth graders or adults.

One could ask, of course, "how in principle could an
abstractionist position --as represented, for example, by a
logogen model -- account for Writing and Talking?" We know
already from the introduction of this paper that Morton's
original logogen model (Morton, 1969) would have predicted
cross-modality facilitation on recognition tasks. And this
is because abstract, conceptual word representations
(logogens) from past experiences were not tied to a
particular modality; therefore, any form of a word (whether
written or spoken) would be equivalently involved in
eliciting a vocalized or a written form of the word.

In 1979, and in 1980 Morton added a distinction between
"input logogens" for perceptual recognition (auditory
logogens for recognizing spoken words, and visual logogens
for recognizing written words) and "output logogens" for
production. In speech production, output logogens are
activated by semantic information from the cognitive system
and produce their phonological code. Later (1980), Morton
extended his model to include "grapheme output logogens"
(for writing) which by analogy are also activated by
semantic information from the cognitive system.

A similar explanation of how speech production operates
on activation principles is offered by Ellis (1984; Miller
and Ellis 1987). These authors noted that the speech

output lexicon includes a "node" for each word in a

83
speaker's vocabulary. These ”nodes” are much like Morton's
logogens. A node or entry of a particular word ”is
activated in speaking by the prior activation of the
semantic representation of the word's meaning. On being
activated, the lexical entry releases or activates the
spoken form of the word." If, for example, we want to talk
about a specific concept, the appropriate word will be
articulated since the corresponding node in the speech
output lexicon is being activated by the semantic
representation of that concept.

Similarly, in Writing, inputs from the semantic system
and possibly inputs from the corresponding units of the
speech output logogens (Ellis, 1982; Morton, 1980)
activate lexical units of the orthographic output lexicon.
As a lexical unit is activated, it activates the appropriate
graphemes in a word, and this results in writing the correct
word.

By looking at the observed facilitation of repetition
in this study, we can draw some conclusions about the
degree of overlap in the way Written and Spoken text are
processed and also describe the flow of information
processing in these output modalities.

First, we can examine the locus or level of
representation at which these facilitation effects took
place in Writing and Talking production tasks. It is very

clear that the locus of learning that supports repetition

84
benefit is not motoric (or peripheral). Learning does not
take place at the neuromuscular execution level ( i.e.,
articulatory movements, or hand/finger movements). If the
locus of learning was at the periphery, then one would
expect a modality-specific pattern of the results similar to
those that have been observed in some perceptual
identification tasks. That is, significant within-modality
transfer but no between-modality transfer. Writing from
memory would facilitate Writing, Talking would facilitate
Talking, but neither of them would facilitate each other.

A second possibility regarding the locus of the
learning mechanism supporting repetition benefit is that it
takes place at the semantic eng motor level as a result of
associative connections between these two components. Under
this possibility one could expect to see repetition benefit
within-modality (modality-specific) and also some transfer
or cross-modality facilitation; but still the within-
modality would be significantly larger than that of
the between-modality facilitation. Again, this is a pattern
of results that has been observed in such perception tasks.

What, then, do the results of this study show?

The results are very straightforward: Complete cross-
modality facilitation. Therefore, the learning that
supports repetition benefit in written and spoken text
production from memory is at the conceptual level of

processing information. The two modalities are represented

85

in a eenenrie or lenienl;egneepr system that is enodal, so
within-modality and cross-modality combinations produced
equal facilitation. Speaking in logogens terms, semantic
representations, speech output logogen, and writing or
orthographic output logogens are interconnected to produce
cross-modality transfer. A suggested information-flow
diagram of this mechanism is presented in Figure 8. This
figure contains an attempt to show the nature of the basic
architecture of information processed during Writing and
Talking production tasks as represented in the form of a
diagram. The components of the diagram are created as a
best-guess about what it should look like based on the
results of this study. The "ovals" represent stored
information, and each arrow corresponds to a pathway along
which information can flow from one component to another.

Interestingly, the absence of developmental change in
practice modality effects show that this suggested
organization in Writing and Talking is developed prior to
grade four, or about that grade. Thus, it seems that at an
early stage in the acquisition of writing skill, practice or
repetition is producing learning at levels that can abstract
across the written structure of language and relate its
meaning to the meaning and structure of spoken language.
This phenomenon may be very important in learning to write
because it can allow one's understanding of written text to

guide processing by taking advantage of similar conceptual

86
experiences, even if the modality in which those experiences
occur is different (e.g., Talking).

The above implication cannot of course be generalized
to lower grades of normally learning students at the moment,
as it is not known whether first, second, or third graders
would benefit from abstract trasnsfer across modality. This
is a question which hopefully can be answered in the near
future by continuation of this study. It is also hoped that
the issues addressed in this study will be explored in other
populations, such as learning disabled individuals and
neurological or other communication disordered individuals.
Findings from such studies might have implications for
classroom instruction and therapeutic intervention.

While the results of this study lead to the conclusion
that repetition-based learning in the production tasks
occurs in the "amodal" components of the semantic level, a
further study could be developed to determine the level of
linguistic representation at which the facilitatitve effect
occurs. Such a study might determine whether semantic
facilitation occurs at the contextual level, at the word
level or at the phonological level. This could be done by
manipulating the linguistic organization of the stimulus
sentences by srcrambling procedures. One, for example,
might find that repetition benefits occur at the lexical
level if transfer is observed independently of whether the

repeated stimulus is coherent text or scrambled text.

87
Through such observations, future research can ultimately
decide whether the architecture depicted in Figure 8 is the
correct one. For the moment, it is a plausible architecture

that account for the results of the present experiments.

PROCESSING

FIGURE 8:

SEMANTIC LEVEL

ORTHOGRAPHIC/
PHONOLOGICAL
LEVEL

MOTOR LEVEL

88

Basic Architecture of the Mechanism for the
Production of Writing and Talking.

 

CONCEPTUAL LEVEL

\

\

 
  

  

       
   

SPEECH
OUTPUT
LOGOGENS

MUSCLE
MOVEMENTS
(MOUTH)

LEXICAL
OUTPUT LOGOGENS

 

.r

  
   

GRAPHEMIC
OUTPUT
LOGOGENS

  

MUSCLE

MOVEMENTS

(HAND)

AMODAL

MODALITY-SPECIFIC

Repetition-based learning in production tasks occurs in the
AMODAL components of the SEMANTIC LEVEL.

89

APPENDIX

90

STIMULUS MATERIAL

Whale sharks are the biggest fish in the world. They
have broad, flat heads with yellow spots and a very wide

mouth. On average these monsters are thirty feet long.

The sea urchin is the porcupine of the sea because it
is covered with spines. Its mouthe is on the bottom of its

body. It eats dead animals and weeds.

91

STIMULUS MATERIAL (continued)
The grizzly bear is a very strong wild animal. This
creature may weigh up to eight hundred pounds. He can kill

a large deer with a sweep of his paw.

The moose is the largest deer in noth America. He is
taller than a horse and is a big eater. In one day he can

eat fifty pounds of leaves.

REFERENCES

Allport, D.A., & Funnell, E. (1981). Components of the

mental lexicon. Pnilgsophical Transactions e: The
ngel Society Of London, B295, B295, 397-410.

Anderson, R.E. (1982). Speech imagery is not always faster

than visual imagery. Memory and CognitionI Vol, lg
(5), 371-380).

Bock, J.K. (1982). Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax:
Information processing contributions to sentence
formulation. Psychological Review, 89, 1-47.

Brooks, D.A., & Baddeley, A. (1976). What can amnesic
patients learn? Neuropsychologia, 14, 111-122.

Brown, H., Sharma, N.K., & Kirsner, K. (1984). The role of
scripts and phonology in lexical representstion.

Qnerterly Journal of Experimental Psycholggy, 36A,
491-505.

Brown, J.S., McDonald, J.L., Brown, T.L., & Carr, T.H.
(1988). Adapting the processing demands in discourse
production: The case of handwriting. Journal of
Experinental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 14, 45-59.

 

Brown, J.S., Carr, T.H., Brown, T.L., McDonald, J.L.,
Charalambous, A., & West, E. (1989). Coordinating
language generation and motor control in discourse
production via handwriting. In R. Plamondon, C.Y.

Suen & M.L. Simmer (Eds), Computer Recognition and
fiumen Production of Handwriting. Word Scintific.

Brown, T.L., & Carr, T.H. (1988). Automaticity in skill
acquisition: Mechanisms for reducing interference in
concurrent performance. Jou a of E erime ta

Peyehelegy: Human Perception and Performance

Carr, T.H., Brown, J.S., & Charalambous, A. (1989).
Repetition and reading: Perceptual encoding mechanisms
are very abstract but not very interactive. Journal or

W
Cogniticn1_1§1 763-778-

92

93

Carr, T.H., 8 Pollatsek, A. (1985). Recognizing printed
words. A look at current models. In D. Besner, T.G.
Waller, & G. E. MacKinnon (Eds. ), Beading research;
AQVQDQQS in Theory and Praetice, (Vol. 5, pp. 1-82).

Orlando: Academic Press.

Carrol, M., & Kirsner, K. (1982). Context and repetition
effects in lexical decision and recognition memory.
V a e al e v or 21
55-69.

Cermak, L.S., Talbot, N., Chandler, R., & Wolbarst, L.R.
(1985). The perceptual priming phenomenon in amnesia.

Neurensxshclegial_23. 615-622-

Clarke, R., & Morton, J. (1983). Cross-modality facilitation
in tachistoscopic word recognition. Quarterly Journal

pf Experimenral Psycnologyll 35AI 79-96.

Cohen, N.J., & Squire, L.R. (1980). Preserved learning and
retention of pettern-analyzingskill in amnesia:
Dissociation of knowing how and knowing that.

$212n221_219. 207 210-

Dejerine, J. (1914). Seniologie des effections du system
neryen. Paris: Masson.

Diamond, R., & Rozin, P. (1984). Activation of existing
memories in anterograte amnesia. our a of orma

EEYQDQIQQYI_21I 98'105-

Ellis, A.W. (1982). Modality-specific repetition priming of
auditory word recognition. Currenr Psycholegical
Peseereh, 2, 123-128.

Ebbinghaus, H. (1885). o : Co ibution to
er me t lo s t' on C.E.
Pnssenins (191;) 2ng agir, l965. New York: Dover

(From German).

Feustel, T.G., Shiffrin, R.M., & Salasoo, A. (1983).
Episodic and lexical contributions to the repetition
effect in word identification. ou a erimental

Psxshclegxi_§enerall_llz. 309-346-

Fitts, P.M., & Posner, M.I. (1967). Human Perfornanee.
Belmont, CA: Brooks-Cole.

Forbach, G.B., Stanners, R.F., & Hochhaus, L. (1974).
Repetition and practice effects in a lexical decision

task. Esmcrx_and_92gnitien1_z. 337-339-

94

Gipson, P. (1984). A etngy gr rne lgng tern prining of
aEdit9r2_serd_regcsnitien- Unpublished Ph-D-

dissertation, University of Cambridge.

Graf, P., Mandler, G., & Haden, P.E. (1982). Simulating
amnesic symptoms in normals. Scieneel 2l§, 1234-1244.

Graf, P., & Schacter, D.L. (1985). Implicit and explicit
memory for new associations in normal and amnesic
subjects. 0 nal ' ent s c o o : Learni

Menerxl_and_gegnitienl_11. 501-518-

Graf, P., Shimamura, A.P., & Squire, L.R. (1985). Priming
across modalities and priming across category levels:
Extending the domain of preserved function in amnesia.

urn o E er' t Ps cholo : Learnin Memo

and Cognition, 11, 385-395.

Graf, P., Squire, L.R., & Mandler, G. (1984). The
information that amnesic patients do not forget.
J i a s c olo : Lea ni mo

eng Qognition, i0, 164-178.

Jackson, A., & Morton, J. (1984). Facilitation of auditory
word recognition. Menory and Cognirionl l2, 568-574.

Jacoby, L.L., & Brooks, L.R. (1984). Nonanalytic cognition:
Memory, perception and concept learning. In G.L. Bower

Ed.). Ps ar ' and iv
Agvences in Pesearcn and Theory (Vol. 18, pp. 1-47).

San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Jacoby, L. L. (1983). Perceptual enhancement: Persistent

effects of an experience. gournal of Experimental
Peychology; Lea rning, Menory. end Cognition, 2, 21-38.

Jacoby, L.L. & Dallas, M. (1981). On the relationship
between autobiographical memory and perceptual

learning. anrnel pf Experimentel Psychology: general,
3, 306-340.

Jacoby, L. L. & Hayman, C. A. (1987). Specific visial transfer
in word identification. 0 n o ' e a
8 ch : Co n't ,
456- 463.

Jacoby, L.L. & Witherspoon, D. (1982). Remembering without
awareness. s o o 36,
300-324.

95

Keele, S.W. (1986). Motor control. In L. Kaufman, J. Thomas,

and K- Boff (Eda-)- Bandbeck_in_2erssptien_and
Perrernenee. New York: Wiley.

Kelly, M.H. and Bock, J.K. (1986). Prototypicality in a
linguistic context: Effects on sentence structure.

I2urna1_2f_Een2rx_and_1ansuagel_2§, 59-75.

Kihlstrom, J.F. (1980). Post hypnotic amnesia for recently
learned material: interactions with "episodic" and

"semantic" memory. cognitixe_£sxcnglogxl_12. 227-251.

Kirsner, K., & Dunn, J.K. (1985). The Perceptual record: A
common factor in repetition priming and attribute
retention. In M.I. Posner & O.S.M. Marin (Eds.).

Argention and Perfgrnance XI, Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum.

Kirsner, K., & Smith, M.C. (1974). Modality effects in word
identification. Memo and Co it' 2, 637-640.

Kirsner, K., Milech, D., & Standen, P. (1983). Common and
modality-specific process in the mental lexicon. Menery
, 621- 630.

Kolers, P.A. (1975). Specificity of operations in sentence
recognition. Qegnirive Psychologyl 7, 289-306.

Kolers, P.A. (1976). Reading a year later. Journal er
' e t s c olo : Human Learnin and Memo 2,
554-565.

Kolers, P.A., & Roediger, A.L. (1984). Procedures of mind.
r ar in and Verbal Behav'or 3,
425-449.

Luria, A.R. (1970). IIBBEEII§_AEDQ§1Q- The Hague: Mouton.
Mackay, D.G. (1981). The problem of rehearsal or mental

practice. Qenrnel er Meter Pehavior, 13, 274-285.

MacKay, D. G. (1982). The problems of flexibility, fluency,
and speed accuracy trade-off in skilled performance.

Psychological_8e_ie21_§2 483- 506-

Mackay, D.G. & Bowman, R.W., Jr. (1969). On producing the
meaning in sentences. er'ca Jou n of s cholo
Q2, 23-39.

Miller. D., 8 Ellis, A.W. (1987). Speech and Writing Errors
in "Neologistic Jargonaphasia": A Lexical Activation
Hypothesis. In M. Coltheart, G. Santori, & R. Job
(Eds.) o s o e
London: Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Ltd.

96

Monsell, S. (1985). Repetition and the lexicon. In A.W.

Ellis (Ed.), Pregrese in the Psyenolegy of Lengnage,
gel. 2. London: Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Ltd.

Monsell, S., 8 Banich, (1987). Nonvisual orthographic
processing and the orthographic lexicon. In
M.Coltheart, Attenrion ang Performance, XII. London:

Erlbaum.

Morton, J. (1969). Interaction of information in word
recognition. Peycnelggical Peview, 76, 165-178.

Morton, J. (1970). A functional model for memory. In D.A.
Norman (Ed-). Medels_gf_nunan_nencrx. N-Y-= Academic

Press .

Morton, J. (1979). Facilitation in word recognition:
Experiments causing change in the logogen model. In
P.A. Kolers, M.E. Wrolstad, 8 H. Bouma (Eds.),
Processing pf Visnel Langnage, Vol. l. New York:

Plenum.

Morton, J. (1980). Two auditory parallels to deep dyslexia.
In M. Coltheart, K. Patterson, 8 J.C. Marshall (Eds.),
Deep Dyslexia. London: Routledge 8 Kegan Paul.

Morton, J. (1980). The logogen model and orthographic
structure. In U. Frith (Ed.). Cognitive Processes in
Spellingr London: Academic Press.

Morton, J. (1981). The status of information models of

language. Philosiphical Trensactions of tne Reyal
Societx_2f_Londgnl_B22§. 387-396.

Moscovitch, M., Winocur, G., 8 McLachlan, D. (1986). Memory
as assessed by recognition and reading time in normal
and memory-impaired people with Alzheimer's disease and
other neurological disorders. Jonrnal of Experimental

2&228212811_§ener211_11_. 331-347-

Murrell, G., 8 Morton, J. (1974). Word recognition and

morphemic structure. gonrnal of Experimentel
£§Y§h212911_IQZ. 953-958-

Newell, A., 8 Rosenbloom, P.S. (1981). Mechanisms of skill
acquisition and law of practice. In J.R. Anderson (Ed),
v s e' is t o , (pp 1 - 56).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Noble, C.E. (1978). Age, race, and sex in the learning and
performance of psychomotor skills. In R.T. Osborne,
C.E. Noble, 8 N. Weyl (Eds.), Human Variation: The

97

W- N . York: Academic

Press .

Rumelhart, D.E., 8 McClelland, J.L. (1982). An interactive
activation model of context effects in letter
perception: part 2. The contextual enhancement effect
and some tests and extensions of the model.

Psyehologicel Peview, 82, 60-94.

Postman, L., 8 Rosenzweig, M.R. (1956). Practice and
transfer in the visual and auditory recognition of

verbal stimuli. Anericen Journel of Psychology, 69,
209-226.

Scarborough, D.L., Cortese, C., 8 Scarborough, H.S. (1977).
Frequency and repetition effects in lexical memory.

gournel of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception
eng Performance, 3, 1-17.

Scarborough, D.L., Gerald, L., 8 Cortese, C. (1979).
Accessing lexical memory: The transfer of word
repetition effects across task and modality. Memory and

CognirionI 7, 3-12.

Tulving, E., 8 Schacter, D.L. (1990). Priming and human
memory systems. Scienee, 274, 301-306.

Tulving, E., Schacter, D.L., 8 Stark, H. (1982). Priming
effects in word-fragment completion are independent of

recognition memory. Journal of Experimentel Psychology:
Hnnan Learning and MemoryI 8, 336-342.

Weiskrantz, L. (1968). Treatments, inferences, and brain

functions. In L. Wiskrantz (Ed), Analysis of Pehaviorel
Qneng_. New York: Harber 8 Row.

Weiskrantz, L. (1985). On issues and theories of human
amnesic syndrom. In N.M. Weinberger, J.L. McGaugh, 8 G.

Lynch (Eds.), Menory Systems of Brain (pp. 380-415).

New York: Guilford Press.

Whittlesea, B.W.A., 8 Brooks, L. (1988). Critical influence
of particular experiences in perception of letters,

words, and phrases. genery end Cognition, 16, 387-399.

Winnick, W.A. 8 Daniel, S. (1970). Two kinds of response
priming in tachistiscopic word recognition. 0 of

W. 74-81-