title: Letter order is not coded by open bigrams.
abstract: Open bigram (OB) models (e.g., SERIOL: Whitney, 2001, 2008; Binary OB, Grainger & van Heuven, 2003; Overlap OB, Grainger et al., 2006; Local combination detector model, Dehaene et al., 2005) posit that letter order in a word is coded by a set of ordered letter pairs. We report three experiments using bigram primes in the same-different match task, investigating the effects of order reversal and the number of letters intervening between the letters in the target. Reversed bigrams (e.g., fo-OF, ob-ABOLISH) produced robust priming, in direct contradiction to the assumption that letter order is coded by the presence of ordered letter pairs. Also in contradiction to the core assumption of current open bigram models, non-contiguous bigrams spanning three letters in the target (e.g., bs-ABOLISH) showed robust priming effects, equivalent in size to contiguous bigrams (e.g., bo-ABOLISH). These results question the role of open bigrams in coding letter order.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology and ARC Centre of Excellence for Cognition and its Disorders (CCD), Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
authors.forename: Sachiko
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Kinoshita
authors.forename: Dennis
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Norris
keywords: Letter order; Open bigrams; Orthographic representation
references.citation: Cognition. 1988 Mar;28(1-2):73-193
references.pmid: 2450717
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2011 Sep;118(3):90-104
references.pmid: 21463891
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2008 Nov;107(2):170-8
references.pmid: 17889315
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2006 Nov 1;33(2):739-48
references.pmid: 16956773
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1998 Dec;24(6):1705-19
references.pmid: 9861718
references.citation: Vision Res. 2005 Apr;45(9):1085-90
references.pmid: 15707915
references.citation: Front Psychol. 2012 Jun 01;3:178
references.pmid: 22675316
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2009 Feb;130(2):127-37
references.pmid: 19081083
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2001 Jun;8(2):221-43
references.pmid: 11495111
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2001 Feb;27(1):154-65
references.pmid: 11248930
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2009 Jan;35(1):1-18
references.pmid: 19210078
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006 Aug;32(4):865-84
references.pmid: 16846285
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2004 May;22(1):466-76
references.pmid: 15110040
references.citation: Front Psychol. 2010 Nov 18;1:174
references.pmid: 21833236
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2006 Mar;32(2):399-415
references.pmid: 16569155
references.citation: Behav Res Methods. 2009 Nov;41(4):977-90
references.pmid: 19897807
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1996 Jul;103(3):518-65
references.pmid: 8759046
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2008;61(12):1873-85
references.pmid: 18609367
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2001 Jan;108(1):204-56
references.pmid: 11212628
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2011 Oct;118(4):570-82
references.pmid: 21823804
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2009 May;35(3):618-39
references.pmid: 19379040
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1969 Mar;76(2):232-5
references.pmid: 5778473
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1982 Jan;89(1):60-94
references.pmid: 7058229
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2006 Apr;113(2):327-57
references.pmid: 16637764
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2012 Jul;119(3):517-45
references.pmid: 22663560
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2005 Jul;9(7):335-41
references.pmid: 15951224
references.citation: Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2003 Feb;35(1):116-24
references.pmid: 12723786
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2008 Aug;137(3):434-55
references.pmid: 18729709
references.citation: Exp Psychol. 2008;55(6):384-93
references.pmid: 19130764
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1989 Oct;96(4):523-68
references.pmid: 2798649
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Feb;8(2):58-9
references.pmid: 15588808
references.citation: Behav Res Methods. 2012 Mar;44(1):287-304
references.pmid: 21720920
references.citation: Front Psychol. 2011 Apr 13;2:54
references.pmid: 21716577
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2006 Mar;17(3):192-3
references.pmid: 16507057
references.citation: Behav Res Methods. 2007 Aug;39(3):445-59
references.pmid: 17958156
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2008 Jul;115(3):577-600
references.pmid: 18729592
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2000 Oct;107(4):824-51
references.pmid: 11089408
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2010 Aug;63(8):1603-18
references.pmid: 20119880
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2010 Jan;63(1):194-204
references.pmid: 19591077
references.citation: Behav Res Methods. 2010 May;42(2):488-96
references.pmid: 20479180
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2006 Apr;10(4):142-3
references.pmid: 16517209
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2011 Feb;39(2):319-34
references.pmid: 21264619
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1996 Jan;103(1):56-115
references.pmid: 8650300
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2010 Jul;117(3):713-58
references.pmid: 20658851
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2007 Oct;14(5):913-8
references.pmid: 18087959