Phonological Neighborhood Effects on Word Processing

This assignment delves into the concept of 'phonological neighborhood density' and its impact on various aspects of language processing. It examines research findings on how the density of words with similar phonetic structures influences word recognition, production, and lexical development. The analysis covers studies using diverse methods like electroencephalography (EEG), magnetoencephalography (MEG), and behavioral experiments. Understanding these effects is crucial for comprehending the complexities of human language processing.

RESEARCH LAB REPORT;
PSYCHOLOGY

ABSTRACT
Phonological density is the process in which replacement of words create confusion.
Phonological density impacts on the lexical decision. Neighbours support in the recognition of
words that assists in making quick decisions. Models present in the study show that inhibitory
connection exists in between lexical representations. Present study involves 108 participants.
Small and large density neighbourhood words are being taken into consideration. The research
paper explores correlation between related, unrelated and non-words. In each trial, pairs or
words are being shown on the screen. In these pairs, there are 3 related and 3 unrelated words. In
each trial, participants are being tested individually. Initially, words are shown at the black
screen for limited period of time. Each respondent is given with instruction to the respondents to
make fast decision and make quick lexical judgement. Furthermore, there are 4 non words as
well. Language matters a lot if individual is familiar with the language and then it is easy for
them to respond quickly.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
METHODS......................................................................................................................................2
RESULTS........................................................................................................................................4
DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................................5
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................7

INTRODUCTION
Background of the study
Phonological density can be defined as words that are generated by replacing phoneme in
target words with others. Lexical decision highly depend upon difference between generated
words and non-words. Phonological neighbourhood density (PND) can be edge, age, earl, earn
and earth. It is considered as an important aspect for mental lexicon. As per the views of Yates
and et.al., (2004) PND put direct impact on lexical decision task. It is the study in which it is
found that participants are able to make fast decisions (Yates, 2005). In this research, author has
applied different set of stimuli that have resulted that phonological neighbourhood helps the
person in making decision for semantic categorization task. This assists the person in making
predictions so that visual word recognition can be done significantly. Models presented in this
study reflects that inhibitory connection exists in between lexical representations. But later on,
Grainger and et.al., (2005) have argued against PND and its effects on decision.
There is a strong relationship in between PND and orthographic neighbourhood density
in order to recognize the visual words. Orthographic neighbourhood density can be defined as
the situation in which one letter can be placed with other at same position in order to generate
same words (Grainger and ett.al, 2005). From the research of Grainger, it is examined that
impacts of PND are facilitative for the objects which have high orthographic whereas, it is
inhibitory for those words which have low orthographic neighbourhood density. In the study of
Yates, researcher has tested hypothesis on effects of PND on lexical decision task. In order to
test this hypothesis, Yates have involved 20 participants in the research. In this test, individuals
have found longer response latencies for small phonological words.
But later on, Yates have conducted another experiment on the same topic in which it is
identified that words neighbours impacts on lexical decisons (Pylkkänen, Stringfellow and
Marantz, 2002). In this experiment, researcher has involved 27 respondents. According to
Pylkkanen and et.al., (2002) it has been resulted that people slowly response towards words with
high phonological neighbourhood density. Phonology helps the individuals in making visual
word perception.
Rationale
One of the main reasons of conducting this research is to identify and examine effects of
phonological neighbourhood density on lexical decision task. As in the study of Meyer and
1

Schvaneveldt, (2011), it has been examined that semantic neighbourhood put direct impact on
the recognition of words. In this current research, scholar has presented phonologically
associated words instead of semantically words (Examining the Phonological Neighbourhood
Density Effect Using near Infrared Spectroscopy, 2011).
Aim
“To identify whether the findings from the semantic neighbourhood would extend to
phonological neighbourhood or not”.
Hypothesis
 PND impacts on a lexical decision task.
 There is a strong relationship between trial type and neighbourhood density.
METHODS
Participants
In the present research, scholar has involved 108 students in the investigation in order to
test hypothesis. There were 26 male out of 108 students. Average age of these participants were
12.29 years. Out of 108, there were 10 respondents that were not having normal vision and 13
participants have shown that English is not their first language (Examining the Phonological
Neighbourhood Density Effect Using near Infrared Spectroscopy, 2011). All participants have
signed on written consent who show that they are ready to participate in the research. This study
has been approved by the higher authorities.
Materials
Researcher has used stimuli with consonant vowel consonant structure. There were 18
large and 14 small neighbourhood words. Mean and standard deviation for each word has been
calculated. Large neighbourhood column with related words has the mean value of 28.5 and
standard deviation of this section is 9.3 (Pylkkänen, Stringfellow and Marantz, 2002). On the
other hand, large neighbourhood column with related words has mean value of 9.6 and standard
deviation of the column is 2.8. Words with large neighbourhood contain six categories. Words
have been shown to participants at white cross on centre of black screen. It was shown for 2
seconds only and after that it has been replaced with other stimuli (Yates, 2005). Stimuli pairs
have been shown to the respondents for 6 seconds so that participants can respond over it. If
people have not become able to give proper response or have given incorrect response.
2

Researcher has made 4 experimental trials and one practice trial. In each trial, 10 words
pairs have been shown on the screen. In these pairs, there were 3 related and 3 unrelated words.
Furthermore, there were 4 non words as well (Examining the Phonological Neighbourhood
Density Effect Using near Infrared Spectroscopy, 2011). These related pairs were phonological
neighbours with each other
Large neighbourhood Small neighbourhood
Related Unrelated Related Unrelated
Job/Jog Boat/Whim Death/Den Love/North
Rude/Road Game/Fad Sour/Hour South/Voice
Bean/Bead Moon/Sage Guess/Geese Poise/Mesh
Bike/Book Fin/Gash Judge/Fudge Food/Vase
Seat/Cheat Tone/Wife Pouch/Pout Faith/Chive
Heart/Cart Kill/Park Safe/Surf Song/Moth
M SD M SD M SD M SD
28.5 9.3 29.1 6.5 9.6 2.8 8.1 1.9
Apparatus
Researcher has done experiments by using personal computer. Individual has used E-
prime software package. In order to collect electronic control box, researcher has used optical
signal. Furthermore, NIRS system has been applied here for spatial resolution.
Procedure
The main aim of study was to identify whether findings from semantic neighbourhood
would extend to phonological neighbourhood or not for lexical decision task. In each trial,
participants have been tested individually. Initially, words have been shown at the black screen
for limited period of time. This was followed for each related and unrelated words for each
individual. Researcher has given instructions to the respondents to make fast decision and make
quick lexical judgement. Each stimulus has been shown at the screen for only two seconds.
3

Reaction time was recorded for each participant (Examining the Phonological Neighbourhood
Density Effect Using Near Infrared Spectroscopy).
Gap in researcher
Researcher could involve some other participants and has to use more words so that
responses can be recorded properly and decisions can be made effectively.
RESULTS
In the mean calculation, it is found that large PN related Rts was less than 187ms and
higher than 791ms. In unrelated trials, it is found that RT is 164.91ms less than or higher than
834 ms. Small Pns related has density 175.28ms less than and higher than 743ms (Gahl and
Strand, 2016).
Related Unrelated Non words
Large PN 791 ms (187.66ms) 834ms (164.91 ms) 847ms (243.39ms)
Small PN 743ms (175.28ms) 807ms (166.47ms) 820ms (207.66ms)
NIRS data has been recorded digitally at 200Hz sampling rate. These data have been
converted into optical density and then filtered. This NIRS data has been down sampled at 2Hz
then average has been calculated for further analysis (Carrasco-Ortiz and et.al, 2017).
4

In order to get results, researcher has applied Anova. In Anova test, scholar has
calculated 2 neighbourhood density buy 3 trial. Neighbourhood density is found F (1, 107) =
13.42, p<.001. It means that there is a significant relationship between variables. It can be
interpreted as that small neighbourhoodcan respond quickly than large neighbourhood trials. F
(2, 214) = 16.45, P<.001. From the results, it can be interpreted that value of P is less than .001
which reflects that there is no significant relationship in between small and large neighbourhood
trials (Barnhart and Goldinger, 2015).
Researcher has also applied Bonferrom correction and with the post hoc analysis, it is
revealed that related trials respond fast as compared to unrelated trials. As value of P is < 0.001
it showns that related trials respond quickly as compare to unrelated. Test applied between
unrelated trials and non-words trials then value of P<.001. It reflects that there is no significant
difference in between unrelated and non-words trials. The value of same is found to be .491.
Researcher has applied test between trial type and neighbourhood density. Results have
found F (2, 214) = 0.71 and p=.491 that means there is no interaction between trial type and
neighbourhood density.
DISCUSSION
PND has been examined in the study and for this examination, small and large
neighbourhood density has been taken into consideration. From the results, it can be said that
there is inhibitory effects of phonological neighbourhood density. It is analysed that small
neighbourhood trial respond quickly as compared to large neighbourhood trials (Hansen, 2017).
Small and large neighbourhood trials affect lexical decisions to a great extent. In the present
study, Anova was used in order to examine effect of phonological neighbourhood density on
lexical decision. It has been found that trial type and neighbourhood density have no significant
relations. Unrelated and non-words trials give the same results. The response time of individuals
in both these aspects are almost same. Small neighbourhood words can be reminded easily and
thus, individuals respond to these words quickly as compared to large neighbourhood words
(Siew and Vitevitch, 2016).
From the above study, it is found that inferior memory for the small neighbourhood
words are negative as compared to large. The fact that has been found in current research is that
phonological neighbourhood has impact on lexical decisions that is why individual fails to
5

maintain accuracy in words. Sensitivity of speed of access is less in the neighbourhood density.
When in the limited time, new stimuli pairs have been shown in front of persons, then
individuals fail to recognise all these words at one time easily. Small words are easy to recall but
for large words, it is difficult (Spataro and et.al, 2017). Results that have been found in the
present study clearly have shown that phonological neighbourhood density impacts on lexical
decision. It can be interpreted that results or word recognition are much more dependent upon
familiarity of individual with written words. If person is familiar with the words or language then
it would be easy to recognise these words as compared to unfamiliar objects. From the results, it
has been identified that people respond quickly on stimulus in the most likely words (Williams
and Newman, 2015).
In the current study, visual word perception has been neglected in the current research.
Previous researches have focused on orthographic neighbourhood with phonological
neighbourhood. But in the present study, scholar has not paid attention on orthographic
neighbourhood. In the experiments, phonological object is being taken into consideration and
then these have been compared with small and large neighbourhood words. Researcher has used
related, unrelated and non-words (Barnhart and Goldinger, 2015). Researcher could examine the
effects of phonological neighbourhood on lexical decision when this neighbourhood is tightly
controlled.
Results that have been found in the present study are completely opposite which have
been seen in auditory lexical decision tasks. Inhibition can be defined as difference between
target and neighbourhood words. If there are many neighbourhood words in stimuli, then it
creates difficulty for the individuals to make quick lexical decision (Gahl and Strand, 2016).
6

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Barnhart, A. S. & Goldinger, S. D. (2015). Orthographic and phonological neighborhood effects
in handwritten word perception. Psychonomic bulletin & review. 22(6). 1739-1745.
Carrasco-Ortiz, H. & et.al., (2017). Interactions in the neighborhood: Effects of orthographic and
phonological neighbors on N400 amplitude. Journal of Neurolinguistics. 41. 1-10.
Gahl, S. & Strand, J. F. (2016). Many neighborhoods: Phonological and perceptual neighborhood
density in lexical production and perception. Journal of Memory and Language. 89. 162-
178.
Grainger, J. and ett.al., 2005. Effects of phonological and orthographic neighbourhood density
interact in visual word recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
Section A. 58(6). pp.981-998.
Hansen, P. (2017). What makes a word easy to acquire? The effects of word class, frequency,
imageability and phonological neighbourhood density on lexical development. First
Language. 37(2). 205-225.
Pylkkänen, L., Stringfellow, A. and Marantz, A., 2002. Neuromagnetic evidence for the timing
of lexical activation: An MEG component sensitive to phonotactic probability but not to
neighborhood density. Brain and language. 81(1-3). pp.666-678.
Siew, C. S. & Vitevitch, M. S. (2016). Spoken word recognition and serial recall of words from
components in the phonological network. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition. 42(3). 394.
Spataro, P. & et.al., (2017). Not all identification tasks are born equal: testing the involvement of
production processes in perceptual identification and lexical decision. Psychological
research,.1-15.
Williams, J. & Newman, S. D. (2015). Modality-independent effects of phonological
neighborhood structure on initial L2 sign language learning. Research in Language.
13(2). 199-213.
Yates, M., 2005. Phonological neighbors speed visual word processing: Evidence from multiple
tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 31(6).
pp.1385.
Online
Examining the Phonological Neighbourhood Density Effect Using Near Infrared Spectroscopy.
2011. [Online]. Available through
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3039710/>
7