Scholarlink

<p>A vast amount of research has been dedicated to clarifying whether spoken word processing (listening) or production (speaking) is constrained by orthographic codes, and whether written word processing (reading) or production (writing) is constrained by phonological codes. Little work has explored what factors might modulate such cross-modality effects. In this paper, we first provided a comprehensive review of existing evidence, then conducted four meta-analyses to determine the size of cross-modality effects, and we explored potential factors that might modulate these effects. We identified robust orthographic effects on spoken word recognition (<i>k</i> = 93, corrected <i>d</i> = 0.61) and production (<i>k</i> = 34, corrected <i>d</i> = 0.44), and robust phonological effects on written word recognition (<i>k</i> = 178, corrected <i>d</i> = 0.49) and production (<i>k</i> = 28, corrected <i>d</i> = 0.35). Moderator analyses indicated that cross-modality effects may be modulated by the tasks used and by language nativeness of participants. These results shed light on our understanding of language processing.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Co-activation of phonological and orthographic codes in various modalities of language processing: A systematic and meta-analytic review

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月3日

查看全文
  • Xiaohui Cui,
  • Markus F. Damian,
  • Qingqing Qu

摘要

A vast amount of research has been dedicated to clarifying whether spoken word processing (listening) or production (speaking) is constrained by orthographic codes, and whether written word processing (reading) or production (writing) is constrained by phonological codes. Little work has explored what factors might modulate such cross-modality effects. In this paper, we first provided a comprehensive review of existing evidence, then conducted four meta-analyses to determine the size of cross-modality effects, and we explored potential factors that might modulate these effects. We identified robust orthographic effects on spoken word recognition (k = 93, corrected d = 0.61) and production (k = 34, corrected d = 0.44), and robust phonological effects on written word recognition (k = 178, corrected d = 0.49) and production (k = 28, corrected d = 0.35). Moderator analyses indicated that cross-modality effects may be modulated by the tasks used and by language nativeness of participants. These results shed light on our understanding of language processing.