Acta Psychologica Sinica ›› 2025, Vol. 57 ›› Issue (8): 1309-1322.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.1309
• Reports of Empirical Studies • Next Articles
LI Xin1, ZHANG Mei1, GU Junjuan2, WANG Yongsheng1, LIANG Feifei1(
)
Published:2025-08-25
Online:2025-05-22
Contact:
LIANG Feifei
E-mail:feifeiliang_329@126.com
LI Xin, ZHANG Mei, GU Junjuan, WANG Yongsheng, LIANG Feifei. (2025). The influence of initial and final character positional probabilities on the flexibility of position coding in two-character word identification. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(8), 1309-1322.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://journal.psych.ac.cn/acps/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.1309
| Property | High Initial-Probability Words | Low Initial-Probability Words | Transposed Primes | Unrelated Primes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whole-word frequency | 1.15(1.26) | 1.07(1.26) | — | — |
| Total stroke count | 17.06(4.64) | 17.03(3.68) | 17.04(4.18) | 16.91(4.11) |
| Initial character frequency | 545.24(2066.44) | 561.56(1187.20) | 519.27(799.86) | 497.64(824.75) |
| Initial stroke count | 8.71(3.35) | 8.68(2.89) | 8.35(2.85) | 8.23(2.88) |
| Final character frequency | 519.27(801.46) | 519.27(801.46) | 553.40(1681.83) | 504.08(1257.42) |
| Final stroke count | 8.35(2.86) | 8.35(2.86) | 8.69(3.12) | 8.68(2.94) |
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics of Target Word Characteristics
| Property | High Initial-Probability Words | Low Initial-Probability Words | Transposed Primes | Unrelated Primes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whole-word frequency | 1.15(1.26) | 1.07(1.26) | — | — |
| Total stroke count | 17.06(4.64) | 17.03(3.68) | 17.04(4.18) | 16.91(4.11) |
| Initial character frequency | 545.24(2066.44) | 561.56(1187.20) | 519.27(799.86) | 497.64(824.75) |
| Initial stroke count | 8.71(3.35) | 8.68(2.89) | 8.35(2.85) | 8.23(2.88) |
| Final character frequency | 519.27(801.46) | 519.27(801.46) | 553.40(1681.83) | 504.08(1257.42) |
| Final stroke count | 8.35(2.86) | 8.35(2.86) | 8.69(3.12) | 8.68(2.94) |
| Property | Filler word | Target word | Transposed Primes | Unrelated Primes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial character frequency | 542.96(1827.41) | 553.40(1681.31) | 521.41(815.30) | 523.68(1066.69) |
| Initial stroke count | 8.68(2.94) | 8.69(3.12) | 8.57(2.73) | 8.67(2.82) |
| Final character frequency | 521.41(815.30) | 519.27(799.86) | 542.96(1827.41) | 524.94(1068.47) |
| Final stroke count | 8.57(2.73) | 8.35(2.85) | 8.68(2.94) | 8.60(2.76) |
| Total stroke count | 17.29(4.00) | 17.04(4.18) | 17.29(4.00) | 17.27(3.84) |
Table 2 Descriptive Statistics of Filler Word Characteristics
| Property | Filler word | Target word | Transposed Primes | Unrelated Primes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial character frequency | 542.96(1827.41) | 553.40(1681.31) | 521.41(815.30) | 523.68(1066.69) |
| Initial stroke count | 8.68(2.94) | 8.69(3.12) | 8.57(2.73) | 8.67(2.82) |
| Final character frequency | 521.41(815.30) | 519.27(799.86) | 542.96(1827.41) | 524.94(1068.47) |
| Final stroke count | 8.57(2.73) | 8.35(2.85) | 8.68(2.94) | 8.60(2.76) |
| Total stroke count | 17.29(4.00) | 17.04(4.18) | 17.29(4.00) | 17.27(3.84) |
| Prime type | mean accuracy | reaction time (ms) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| High Initial-Probability Words | Low Initial-Probability Words | High Initial-Probability Words | Low Initial-Probability Words | |
| identity | 0.94(0.05) | 0.92(0.05) | 625(98) | 622(94) |
| transposed | 0.94(0.05) | 0.90(0.06) | 708(99) | 719(103) |
| unrelated | 0.92(0.07) | 0.90(0.08) | 749(95) | 755(98) |
Table 3 Mean accuracy (proportion correct) and reaction time (ms) by condition at 80 ms Prime Duration.
| Prime type | mean accuracy | reaction time (ms) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| High Initial-Probability Words | Low Initial-Probability Words | High Initial-Probability Words | Low Initial-Probability Words | |
| identity | 0.94(0.05) | 0.92(0.05) | 625(98) | 622(94) |
| transposed | 0.94(0.05) | 0.90(0.06) | 708(99) | 719(103) |
| unrelated | 0.92(0.07) | 0.90(0.08) | 749(95) | 755(98) |
| Dependent Variable | Fixed Effect | b | SE | t/z | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Intercept | 3.00 | 0.12 | 25.94 | [2.78, 3.23] |
| Positional probability of first morpheme | ?0.29 | 0.16 | ?1.84 | [?0.60, 0.02] | |
| Prime type (UN vs. TC) | ?0.20 | 0.19 | ?1.08 | [?0.58, 0.17] | |
| Positional probability × Prime type (UN vs. TC) | 0.34 | 0.38 | 0.89 | [?0.41, 1.08] | |
| Reaction time | Intercept | 6.51 | 0.02 | 341.63*** | [6.47, 6.54] |
| Positional probability of first morpheme | 0.01 | 0.01 | 1.01 | [?0.01, 0.02] | |
| Prime type (UN vs. TC) | 0.06 | 0.01 | 6.21*** | [0.04, 0.08] | |
| Positional probability × Prime type (UN vs. TC) | ?0.01 | 0.01 | ?0.40 | [?0.04, 0.03] |
Table 4 Linear Mixed-Effects Model Statistics for Accuracy and Reaction Time Data at 80 ms Prime Duration
| Dependent Variable | Fixed Effect | b | SE | t/z | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Intercept | 3.00 | 0.12 | 25.94 | [2.78, 3.23] |
| Positional probability of first morpheme | ?0.29 | 0.16 | ?1.84 | [?0.60, 0.02] | |
| Prime type (UN vs. TC) | ?0.20 | 0.19 | ?1.08 | [?0.58, 0.17] | |
| Positional probability × Prime type (UN vs. TC) | 0.34 | 0.38 | 0.89 | [?0.41, 1.08] | |
| Reaction time | Intercept | 6.51 | 0.02 | 341.63*** | [6.47, 6.54] |
| Positional probability of first morpheme | 0.01 | 0.01 | 1.01 | [?0.01, 0.02] | |
| Prime type (UN vs. TC) | 0.06 | 0.01 | 6.21*** | [0.04, 0.08] | |
| Positional probability × Prime type (UN vs. TC) | ?0.01 | 0.01 | ?0.40 | [?0.04, 0.03] |
| Prime type | mean accuracy | reaction time (ms) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| High Initial-Probability Words | Low Initial-Probability Words | High Initial-Probability Words | Low Initial-Probability Words | |
| identity | 0.94(0.05) | 0.93(0.06) | 527(89) | 530(89) |
| transposed | 0.94(0.05) | 0.93(0.04) | 644(96) | 669(95) |
| unrelated | 0.91(0.06) | 0.89(0.08) | 715(82) | 719(85) |
Table 5 Mean accuracy (proportion correct) and reaction time (ms) by condition at 150 ms Prime Duration.
| Prime type | mean accuracy | reaction time (ms) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| High Initial-Probability Words | Low Initial-Probability Words | High Initial-Probability Words | Low Initial-Probability Words | |
| identity | 0.94(0.05) | 0.93(0.06) | 527(89) | 530(89) |
| transposed | 0.94(0.05) | 0.93(0.04) | 644(96) | 669(95) |
| unrelated | 0.91(0.06) | 0.89(0.08) | 715(82) | 719(85) |
| Dependent Variable | Fixed Effect | b | SE | t/z | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Intercept | 2.85 | 0.10 | 28.87 | [2.67, 3.04] |
| Positional probability of first morpheme | ?0.22 | 0.12 | ?1.89 | [?0.45, 0.01] | |
| Prime type (UN vs. TC) | ?0.60 | 0.14 | ?4.22*** | [?0.88, ?0.32] | |
| Positional probability × Prime type (UN vs. TC) | ?0.10 | 0.28 | ?0.34 | [?0.65, 0.46] | |
| Reaction time | Intercept | 6.41 | 0.02 | 352.30*** | [6.37, 6.44] |
| Positional probability of first morpheme | 0.02 | 0.01 | 2.89** | [0.01, 0.03] | |
| Prime type (UN vs. TC) | 0.10 | 0.01 | 11.61*** | [0.08, 0.12] | |
| Positional probability × Prime type (UN vs. TC) | ?0.03 | 0.01 | ?2.28* | [?0.06, ?0.004] |
Table 6 Linear Mixed-Effects Model Statistics for Accuracy and Reaction Time Data at 150 ms Prime Duration
| Dependent Variable | Fixed Effect | b | SE | t/z | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Intercept | 2.85 | 0.10 | 28.87 | [2.67, 3.04] |
| Positional probability of first morpheme | ?0.22 | 0.12 | ?1.89 | [?0.45, 0.01] | |
| Prime type (UN vs. TC) | ?0.60 | 0.14 | ?4.22*** | [?0.88, ?0.32] | |
| Positional probability × Prime type (UN vs. TC) | ?0.10 | 0.28 | ?0.34 | [?0.65, 0.46] | |
| Reaction time | Intercept | 6.41 | 0.02 | 352.30*** | [6.37, 6.44] |
| Positional probability of first morpheme | 0.02 | 0.01 | 2.89** | [0.01, 0.03] | |
| Prime type (UN vs. TC) | 0.10 | 0.01 | 11.61*** | [0.08, 0.12] | |
| Positional probability × Prime type (UN vs. TC) | ?0.03 | 0.01 | ?2.28* | [?0.06, ?0.004] |
| Prime type | mean accuracy | reaction time (ms) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| High Initial-Probability Words | Low Initial-Probability Words | High Initial-Probability Words | Low Initial-Probability Words | |
| identity | 0.95(0.04) | 0.93(0.06) | 522(93) | 525(89) |
| transposed | 0.95(0.04) | 0.93(0.05) | 672(107) | 680(111) |
| unrelated | 0.92(0.09) | 0.91(0.08) | 758(103) | 755(102) |
Table 7 Mean accuracy (proportion correct) and reaction time (ms) by condition at 300 ms Prime Duration.
| Prime type | mean accuracy | reaction time (ms) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| High Initial-Probability Words | Low Initial-Probability Words | High Initial-Probability Words | Low Initial-Probability Words | |
| identity | 0.95(0.04) | 0.93(0.06) | 522(93) | 525(89) |
| transposed | 0.95(0.04) | 0.93(0.05) | 672(107) | 680(111) |
| unrelated | 0.92(0.09) | 0.91(0.08) | 758(103) | 755(102) |
| Dependent Variable | Fixed Effect | b | SE | t/z | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Intercept | 3.15 | 0.13 | 24.52*** | [2.67, 3.04] |
| Positional probability of first morpheme | ?0.20 | 0.14 | ?1.44 | [?0.45, 0.01] | |
| Prime type (UN vs. TC) | ?0.48 | 0.17 | ?2.88** | [?0.88, ?0.32] | |
| Positional probability × Prime type (UN vs. TC) | 0.23 | 0.33 | 0.68 | [?0.65, 0.46] | |
| Reaction time | Intercept | 6.42 | 0.02 | 284.05*** | [6.38, 6.47] |
| Positional probability of first morpheme | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.80 | [?0.01, 0.02] | |
| Prime type (UN vs. TC) | 0.13 | 0.01 | 11.06*** | [0.10, 0.15] | |
| Positional probability × Prime type (UN vs. TC) | ?0.01 | 0.02 | ?0.71 | [?0.05, 0.02] |
Table 8 Linear Mixed-Effects Model Statistics for Accuracy and Reaction Time Data at 150 ms Prime Duration
| Dependent Variable | Fixed Effect | b | SE | t/z | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Intercept | 3.15 | 0.13 | 24.52*** | [2.67, 3.04] |
| Positional probability of first morpheme | ?0.20 | 0.14 | ?1.44 | [?0.45, 0.01] | |
| Prime type (UN vs. TC) | ?0.48 | 0.17 | ?2.88** | [?0.88, ?0.32] | |
| Positional probability × Prime type (UN vs. TC) | 0.23 | 0.33 | 0.68 | [?0.65, 0.46] | |
| Reaction time | Intercept | 6.42 | 0.02 | 284.05*** | [6.38, 6.47] |
| Positional probability of first morpheme | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.80 | [?0.01, 0.02] | |
| Prime type (UN vs. TC) | 0.13 | 0.01 | 11.06*** | [0.10, 0.15] | |
| Positional probability × Prime type (UN vs. TC) | ?0.01 | 0.02 | ?0.71 | [?0.05, 0.02] |
| Property | High Initial-Probability Words | Low Initial-Probability Words | Transposed Primes | Unrelated Primes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whole-word frequency | 1.01(1.18) | 1.00(1.16) | — | — |
| Total stroke count | 17.17(4.29) | 16.92(4.24) | 17.04(4.26) | 16.99(4.20) |
| Initial character frequency | 486.48(1106.77) | 486.48(1106.77) | 825.26(3903.27) | 822.81(2290.62) |
| Initial stroke count | 8.58(3.11) | 8.58(3.11) | 8.47(3.01) | 8.48(2.97) |
| Final character frequency | 635.75(1467.70) | 1014.77(5325.25) | 486.48(1104.71) | 446.96(652.66) |
| Final stroke count | 8.59(3.03) | 8.34(2.99) | 8.58(3.11) | 8.51(3.10) |
Table 9 Descriptive Statistics of Target Word Characteristics
| Property | High Initial-Probability Words | Low Initial-Probability Words | Transposed Primes | Unrelated Primes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whole-word frequency | 1.01(1.18) | 1.00(1.16) | — | — |
| Total stroke count | 17.17(4.29) | 16.92(4.24) | 17.04(4.26) | 16.99(4.20) |
| Initial character frequency | 486.48(1106.77) | 486.48(1106.77) | 825.26(3903.27) | 822.81(2290.62) |
| Initial stroke count | 8.58(3.11) | 8.58(3.11) | 8.47(3.01) | 8.48(2.97) |
| Final character frequency | 635.75(1467.70) | 1014.77(5325.25) | 486.48(1104.71) | 446.96(652.66) |
| Final stroke count | 8.59(3.03) | 8.34(2.99) | 8.58(3.11) | 8.51(3.10) |
| Property | Filler word | Target word | Transposed Primes | Unrelated Primes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial character frequency | 486.89(1121.17) | 486.48(1104.71) | 681.40(1315.07) | 669.15(1257.28) |
| Initial stroke count | 8.59(3.19) | 8.58(3.11) | 8.57(3.08) | 8.51(3.01) |
| Final character frequency | 681.40(1315.07) | 825.26(3903.27) | 486.89(1121.17) | 487.15(986.16) |
| Final stroke count | 8.57(3.08) | 8.47(3.01) | 8.59(3.19) | 8.62(3.11) |
| Total stroke count | 17.16(4.42) | 17.04(4.26) | 17.37(4.41) | 17.13(4.43) |
Table 10 Descriptive Statistics of Filler Word Characteristics
| Property | Filler word | Target word | Transposed Primes | Unrelated Primes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial character frequency | 486.89(1121.17) | 486.48(1104.71) | 681.40(1315.07) | 669.15(1257.28) |
| Initial stroke count | 8.59(3.19) | 8.58(3.11) | 8.57(3.08) | 8.51(3.01) |
| Final character frequency | 681.40(1315.07) | 825.26(3903.27) | 486.89(1121.17) | 487.15(986.16) |
| Final stroke count | 8.57(3.08) | 8.47(3.01) | 8.59(3.19) | 8.62(3.11) |
| Total stroke count | 17.16(4.42) | 17.04(4.26) | 17.37(4.41) | 17.13(4.43) |
| Prime type | mean accuracy | reaction time (ms) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| High Final-Probability Words | Low Final-Probability Words | High Final-Probability Words | Low Final-Probability Words | |
| identity | 0.93(0.04) | 0.92(0.05) | 610(92) | 638(93) |
| transposed | 0.94(0.04) | 0.91(0.06) | 698(90) | 704(88) |
| unrelated | 0.94(0.05) | 0.90(0.06) | 729(89) | 757(94) |
Table 11 Mean accuracy (proportion correct) and reaction time (ms) by condition at 80 ms Prime Duration.
| Prime type | mean accuracy | reaction time (ms) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| High Final-Probability Words | Low Final-Probability Words | High Final-Probability Words | Low Final-Probability Words | |
| identity | 0.93(0.04) | 0.92(0.05) | 610(92) | 638(93) |
| transposed | 0.94(0.04) | 0.91(0.06) | 698(90) | 704(88) |
| unrelated | 0.94(0.05) | 0.90(0.06) | 729(89) | 757(94) |
| Dependent Variable | Fixed Effect | b | SE | t/z | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Intercept | 2.74 | 0.09 | 31.57*** | [2.57, 2.91] |
| Positional probability of final morpheme | ?0.37 | 0.12 | ?3.06** | [?0.61, ?0.13] | |
| Prime type (UN vs. TC) | ?0.09 | 0.13 | ?0.68 | [?0.35, 0.17] | |
| Positional probability × Prime type (UN vs. TC) | ?0.01 | 0.26 | ?0.02 | [?0.52, 0.51] | |
| Reaction time | Intercept | 6.50 | 0.02 | 349.43*** | [6.46, 6.53] |
| Positional probability of final morpheme | 0.03 | 0.01 | 5.37*** | [0.02, 0.04] | |
| Prime type (UN vs. TC) | 0.06 | 0.01 | 8.06*** | [0.05, 0.08] | |
| Positional probability × Prime type (UN vs. TC) | 0.02 | 0.01 | 1.66 | [?0.004, 0.05] |
Table 12 Linear Mixed-Effects Model Statistics for Accuracy and Reaction Time Data at 80 ms Prime Duration
| Dependent Variable | Fixed Effect | b | SE | t/z | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Intercept | 2.74 | 0.09 | 31.57*** | [2.57, 2.91] |
| Positional probability of final morpheme | ?0.37 | 0.12 | ?3.06** | [?0.61, ?0.13] | |
| Prime type (UN vs. TC) | ?0.09 | 0.13 | ?0.68 | [?0.35, 0.17] | |
| Positional probability × Prime type (UN vs. TC) | ?0.01 | 0.26 | ?0.02 | [?0.52, 0.51] | |
| Reaction time | Intercept | 6.50 | 0.02 | 349.43*** | [6.46, 6.53] |
| Positional probability of final morpheme | 0.03 | 0.01 | 5.37*** | [0.02, 0.04] | |
| Prime type (UN vs. TC) | 0.06 | 0.01 | 8.06*** | [0.05, 0.08] | |
| Positional probability × Prime type (UN vs. TC) | 0.02 | 0.01 | 1.66 | [?0.004, 0.05] |
| Prime type | mean accuracy | reaction time (ms) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| High Final-Probability Words | Low Final-Probability Words | High Final-Probability Words | Low Final-Probability Words | |
| identity | 0.95(0.04) | 0.91(0.07) | 523(78) | 544(95) |
| transposed | 0.94(0.06) | 0.91(0.08) | 633(97) | 655(92) |
| unrelated | 0.91(0.09) | 0.86(0.09) | 705(88) | 712(91) |
Table 13 Mean accuracy (proportion correct) and reaction time (ms) by condition at 150 ms Prime Duration.
| Prime type | mean accuracy | reaction time (ms) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| High Final-Probability Words | Low Final-Probability Words | High Final-Probability Words | Low Final-Probability Words | |
| identity | 0.95(0.04) | 0.91(0.07) | 523(78) | 544(95) |
| transposed | 0.94(0.06) | 0.91(0.08) | 633(97) | 655(92) |
| unrelated | 0.91(0.09) | 0.86(0.09) | 705(88) | 712(91) |
| Dependent Variable | Fixed Effect | b | SE | t/z | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Intercept | 2.67 | 0.10 | 26.17*** | [2.47, 2.87] |
| Positional probability of final morpheme | ?0.58 | 0.10 | ?6.09*** | [?0.77, ?0.40] | |
| Prime type (UN vs. TC) | ?0.54 | 0.11 | ?4.74*** | [?0.77, ?0.32] | |
| Positional probability × Prime type (UN vs. TC) | 0.06 | 0.23 | 0.25 | [?0.39, 0.50] | |
| Reaction time | Intercept | 6.40 | 0.02 | 322.38*** | [6.36, 6.44] |
| Positional probability of final morpheme | 0.03 | 0.01 | 4.31*** | [0.02, 0.04] | |
| Prime type (UN vs. TC) | 0.11 | 0.01 | 14.22*** | [0.09, 0.12] | |
| Positional probability × Prime type (UN vs. TC) | ?0.02 | 0.01 | ?1.58 | [?0.05, 0.01] |
Table 14 Linear Mixed-Effects Model Statistics for Accuracy and Reaction Time Data at 150 ms Prime Duration
| Dependent Variable | Fixed Effect | b | SE | t/z | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Intercept | 2.67 | 0.10 | 26.17*** | [2.47, 2.87] |
| Positional probability of final morpheme | ?0.58 | 0.10 | ?6.09*** | [?0.77, ?0.40] | |
| Prime type (UN vs. TC) | ?0.54 | 0.11 | ?4.74*** | [?0.77, ?0.32] | |
| Positional probability × Prime type (UN vs. TC) | 0.06 | 0.23 | 0.25 | [?0.39, 0.50] | |
| Reaction time | Intercept | 6.40 | 0.02 | 322.38*** | [6.36, 6.44] |
| Positional probability of final morpheme | 0.03 | 0.01 | 4.31*** | [0.02, 0.04] | |
| Prime type (UN vs. TC) | 0.11 | 0.01 | 14.22*** | [0.09, 0.12] | |
| Positional probability × Prime type (UN vs. TC) | ?0.02 | 0.01 | ?1.58 | [?0.05, 0.01] |
| Prime type | mean accuracy | reaction time (ms) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| High Final-Probability Words | Low Final-Probability Words | High Final-Probability Words | Low Final-Probability Words | |
| identity | 0.95(0.05) | 0.92(0.06) | 511(105) | 533(111) |
| transposed | 0.94(0.06) | 0.91(0.06) | 668(116) | 690(118) |
| unrelated | 0.92(0.08) | 0.88(0.09) | 740(102) | 765(102) |
Table 15 Mean accuracy (proportion correct) and reaction time (ms) by condition at 300 ms Prime Duration.
| Prime type | mean accuracy | reaction time (ms) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| High Final-Probability Words | Low Final-Probability Words | High Final-Probability Words | Low Final-Probability Words | |
| identity | 0.95(0.05) | 0.92(0.06) | 511(105) | 533(111) |
| transposed | 0.94(0.06) | 0.91(0.06) | 668(116) | 690(118) |
| unrelated | 0.92(0.08) | 0.88(0.09) | 740(102) | 765(102) |
| Dependent Variable | Fixed Effect | b | SE | t/z | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Intercept | 2.89 | 0.12 | 23.43*** | [2.64, 3.13] |
| Positional probability of final morpheme | ?0.55 | 0.13 | ?4.31*** | [?0.80, ?0.30] | |
| Prime type (UN vs. TC) | ?0.42 | 0.14 | ?3.00** | [?0.69, ?0.15] | |
| Positional probability × Prime type (UN vs. TC) | 0.11 | 0.28 | 0.38 | [?0.44, 0.65] | |
| Reaction time | Intercept | 6.42 | 0.02 | 277.35*** | [6.37, 6.46] |
| Positional probability of final morpheme | 0.04 | 0.01 | 4.57*** | [0.02, 0.05] | |
| Prime type (UN vs. TC) | 0.12 | 0.01 | 10.42*** | [0.10, 0.14] | |
| Positional probability × Prime type (UN vs. TC) | ?0.01 | 0.02 | ?0.34 | [?0.04, 0.03] |
Table 16 Linear Mixed-Effects Model Statistics for Accuracy and Reaction Time Data at 150 ms Prime Duration
| Dependent Variable | Fixed Effect | b | SE | t/z | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Intercept | 2.89 | 0.12 | 23.43*** | [2.64, 3.13] |
| Positional probability of final morpheme | ?0.55 | 0.13 | ?4.31*** | [?0.80, ?0.30] | |
| Prime type (UN vs. TC) | ?0.42 | 0.14 | ?3.00** | [?0.69, ?0.15] | |
| Positional probability × Prime type (UN vs. TC) | 0.11 | 0.28 | 0.38 | [?0.44, 0.65] | |
| Reaction time | Intercept | 6.42 | 0.02 | 277.35*** | [6.37, 6.46] |
| Positional probability of final morpheme | 0.04 | 0.01 | 4.57*** | [0.02, 0.05] | |
| Prime type (UN vs. TC) | 0.12 | 0.01 | 10.42*** | [0.10, 0.14] | |
| Positional probability × Prime type (UN vs. TC) | ?0.01 | 0.02 | ?0.34 | [?0.04, 0.03] |
| [1] | Baciero, A., Gomez, P., Duñabeitia, J. A., & Perea, M. (2022). Raeding with the fingres: Towards a universal model of letter position coding. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 29(6), 2275-2283. |
| [2] | Bai, X. J., Li, X., & Yan, G. L. (2015). Eye movement control in Chinese reading: A summary over the past 20 years of research. Psychological Development and Education, 31(1), 85-91. |
| [3] | Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2023). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using ‘Eigen’ and S4. Retrieved July 4, 2023, from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html |
| [4] | Blythe, H. I., Johnson, R. L., Liversedge, S. P., & Rayner, K. (2014). Reading transposed text: Effects of transposed letter distance and consonant-vowel status on eye movements. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76( 8), 2424-2440. |
| [5] | Cai, Q., & Brysbaert, M. (2010). SUBTLEX-CH: Chinese word and character frequencies based on film subtitles. PloS One, 5(6), e10729. |
| [6] |
Cao, H. B., Lan, Z. B., Gao, F., Yu, H. T., Li, P., & Wang, J. X. (2023). The role of character positional frequency on word recognition during Chinese reading: Lexical decision and eye movements studies. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(2), 159-176.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00159 |
| [7] |
Davis, C. J. (2010). The spatial coding model of visual word identification. Psychological Review, 117(3), 713-758.
doi: 10.1037/a0019738 pmid: 20658851 |
| [8] |
Gomez, P., Ratcliff, R., & Perea, M. (2008). The overlap model: A model of letter position coding. Psychological Review, 115(3), 577-600.
doi: 10.1037/a0012667 pmid: 18729592 |
| [9] | Gu, J. J., Gao, Z. H., & Qu, Q. Q. (2020). The word boundary effect of Chinese character position processing. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 18(2), 193-199. |
| [10] |
Gu, J. J., Li, X. S., & Liversedge, S. P. (2015). Character order processing in Chinese reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(1), 127-137.
doi: 10.1037/a0038639 pmid: 25621586 |
| [11] | Hansell, M. (2008). Teaching and learning Chinese as a foreign language: A pedagogical grammar. Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 331-332. |
| [12] | Hua, H. M., Gu, J. J., Lin, N., & Li, X. S. (2017). Letter/character position encoding in visual word recognition. Advances in Psychological Science, 25(7), 1132-1138. |
| [13] | Johnson, R. L., Perea, M., & Rayner, K. (2007). Transposed-letter effects in reading: Evidence from eye movements and parafoveal preview. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(1), 209-229. |
| [14] | Li, X. S., & Pollatsek, A. (2020). An integrated model of word processing and eye-movement control during Chinese reading. Psychological Review, 127(6), 1139-1162. |
| [15] | Lian, K. Y., Ma, J., Wei, L., Zhang, S. W., & Bai, X. J. (2021). The role of character positional frequency on college and primary student in oral reading. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 19(2), 179-185. |
| [16] | Liang, F. F., Blythe, H. I., Bai, X. J., Yan, G. L., Li, X., Zang, C. L., & Liversedge, S. P. (2017). The role of character positional frequency on Chinese word learning during natural reading. PloS One, 12(11), e0187656. |
| [17] | Liang, F. F., Blythe, H. I., Zang, C. L., Bai, X. J., Yan, G. L., & Liversedge, S. P. (2015). Positional character frequency and word spacing facilitate the acquisition of novel words during Chinese children's reading. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27(5), 594-608. |
| [18] |
Liang, F. F., Feng, L. L., Liu, Y., Li, X., & Bai, X. J. (2024). Different roles of initial and final character positional probabilities on incidental word learning during Chinese reading. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(3), 281-294.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00281 |
| [19] | Liang, F. F., Gao, Q., Li, X., Wang, Y. S., Bai, X. J., & Liversedge, S. P. (2023). The importance of the positional probability of word final (but not word initial) characters for word segmentation and identification in children and adults' natural Chinese reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 49( 1), 98-115. |
| [20] |
Liang, F. F., Liu, Y., Feng, L. L., He, F., Wang, Z., & Bai, X. J. (2024). Visual complexity effect in Chinese incidental word learning: Evidence from number of strokes and word length. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(12), 1734-1750.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.01734 |
| [21] | Ma, G. J., & Li, X. S. (2015). How character complexity modulates eye movement control in Chinese reading. Reading and Writing, 28(6), 747-761. |
| [22] | Peng, D. L., Ding, G. S., Wang, C. M., Taft, M., & Zhu, X. P. (1999). The processing of Chinese reversible words-the role of morphemes in lexical access. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 31(1), 36-46. |
| [23] |
Perea, M., & Fraga, I. (2006). Transposed-letter and laterality effects in lexical decision. Brain and Language, 97(1), 102-109.
pmid: 16183108 |
| [24] | Perea, M., Winskel, H., & Ratitamkul, T. (2012). On the flexibility of letter position coding during lexical processing: The case of Thai. Experimental Psychology, 59(2), 68-73. |
| [25] | R, Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/ |
| [26] | Song, X. N., Xu, X. C., Yang, X. L., Sun, G. L., & Cui, L. (2022). The influence of predictability, word frequency and stroke number on Chinese word recognition: An eye movement study. Journal of Psychological Science, 45(5), 1061-1068. |
| [27] |
Su, X. Z., Li, X. X., Li, R. R., Zhao, C. Z., & Cui, L. (2024). Morphological structures of two-character words influence character position encoding. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(4), 383-393.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00383 |
| [28] | Taft, M. (2004). Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57(4), 745-765. |
| [29] |
Xu, E. J., & Sui, X. (2018). Effects of predictability on the time course of identity information and location information in Chinese word recognition. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50(6), 606-621.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00606 |
| [30] | Yan, G. L., Tian, H. J., Bai, X. J., & Rayner, K. (2006). The effect of word and character frequency on the eye movements of Chinese readers. British Journal of Psychology, 97(2), 259-268. |
| [31] | Zhang, Y. C., Jiang, Y., Dong, Q., & Wang, J. X. (2021). The identity and position processing for Chinese character, digit, and symbol strings——special mechanism of Chinese reading. Psychological Exploration, 41(6), 504-514. |
| [1] | SU Xingzhi, LI Xiaoxuan, LI Rongrong, ZHAO Changze, CUI Lei. Morphological structures of two-character words influence character position encoding [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2024, 56(4): 383-393. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||