Computing the meanings of words in reading: cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes.

By Michael W. Harm, Mark S. Seidenberg. Psychology Review, 2004

1,095 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cultural Studies, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a23500b46da8ec5d5f6f973bd476e11cbbd5a5c3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cultural Studies

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Spelling as Statistical Learning: Using Consonantal Context to Spell Vowels (2006, methodology): “The idea that learning involves picking up the statistical patterns in the environment has been instantiated in connectionist theories, which are often implemented as computer models (see Brown & Loosemore, 1994, for spelling; Harm & Seidenberg, 2004, for reading).”
Beyond single syllables: large-scale modeling of reading aloud with the Connectionist Dual Process (CDP++) model. (2010, neutral): “Cognitive Psychology (2010), doi:10.1016/ j.cogpsych.2010.04.001 well as retrieved through a pathway that involves lexical (e.g., Coltheart et al., 2001; Zorzi et al., 1998a) or semantic (e.g., Harm & Seidenberg, 2004; Plaut et al., 1996) representations.”
Models of Semantic Memory (2015, background): “The various models differ greatly in the cognitive mechanisms they posit that humans use to construct semantic representations, ranging from Hebbian learning to probabilistic inference. But the unifying theme common to all these models is that they hypothesize a formal cognitive mechanism to learn s”
The Neurobiological Basis of Skilled and Impaired Reading: Recent Findings and New Directions (2004, background): “In our view, this revised account better lends itself to the architectural assumptions put forward in interactive models (e.g., Harm & Seidenberg, 1999 ) than to classic dual-route models.”
Visual Word Recognition (2007, positive): “Distributed-connectionist theories, in contrast, deny the existence of an orthographic lexicon—or indeed, any lexicon (e.g. Harm and Seidenberg, 2004; Plaut, 1997; Plaut and Booth, 2000; Plaut et al., 1996; Seidenberg and McClelland, 1989; see Seidenberg, Chapter 14 this volume).”
On the Anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: the perils of overreliance on an "outlier" orthography. (2008, background): “Only recently has the Seidenberg group moved on to address issues (e.g., meaning access; see Harm & Seidenberg, 2004) other than the oral pronunciation of isolated words differing in spelling–sound consistency.”
Semantic diversity: A measure of semantic ambiguity based on variability in the contextual usage of words (2012, background): “…of word meaning, not as discrete nodes that compete for activation, but as graded and distributed patterns of activation that capture conceptual similarity structure (e.g., Harm & Seidenberg, 2004; Lambon Ralph, Sage, Jones, & Mayberry, 2010; Rogers et al., 2004; Rogers & McClelland, 2004).”
Both the Middle Temporal Gyrus and the Ventral Anterior Temporal Area Are Crucial for Multimodal Semantic Processing: Distortion-corrected fMRI Evidence for a Double Gradient of Information Convergence in the Temporal Lobes (2012, background): “…that are primarily formed from auditory experience, and thus, the STG is commonly associated with reading (Jobard, Vigneau, Mazoyer, & Tzourio-Mazoyer, 2007; Spitsyna et al., 2006; Harm & Seidenberg, 2004; Patterson & Lambon Ralph, 1999; Just, Carpenter, Keller, Eddy, & Thulborn, 1996).”
Neuroconstructivism - I: How the Brain Constructs Cognition (2007, methodology): “Most computational models of typical and atypical reading development assume that the problem is learning to map representational codes for written words, spoken words, and word meaning (e.g., Harm & Seidenberg, 2004; Plaut et al., 1996; Seidenberg & McClelland, 1989).”
Effects of primary and secondary morphological family size in monolingual and bilingual word processing (2014, methodology): “Third, the NDR model learns from `raw' language data; no transformations of frequency such a sed by the triangle model (equation 6) of Harm and Seidenberg (2004) are required.”