Диссертация (Распознавание слов на ранних этапах процесса чтения экспериментальное исследование на материале русского языка), страница 36

— 2010. — Vol. 17. — N 3. — P. 369–374.172. Perea, M. Does jugde activate COURT? Transposed-letter similarity effects inmasked associative priming / M. Perea, S. J. Lupker // Mem. Cognit. — 2003. —Vol. 31. — N 6. — P. 829–841.173. Perea, M. Is the go/no-go lexical decision task an alternative to the yes/no lexicaldecision task? / M. Perea, E. Rosa, C. Gómez // Mem. Cognit. — 2002. — Vol. 30. —N 1. — P. 34–45.174.

Perea, M. Influence of neighborhood size and exposure duration on visual-word205recognition: Evidence with the yes/no and the go/no-go lexical decision tasks / M. Perea,E. Rosa, C. Gómez // Percept. Psychophys. — 2003. — Vol. 65. — N 2. — P. 273–286.175. Perea, M. E-Hitz: A word frequency list and a program for derivingpsycholinguistic statistics in an agglutinative language (Basque) / M. Perea, M. Urkia,C. J. Davis, A.

Agirre, E. Laseka, M. Carreiras // Behav. Res. Methods. — 2006. —Vol. 38. — N 4. — P. 610–615.176. Pinker, S. Rules of language / S. Pinker // Science. — 1991. — Vol. 253. —N 5019. — P. 530–535.177. Pinker, S. Words and rules: The ingredients of language. / S. Pinker — New York:Harper Collins, 1999.

— 352 p.178. Pitchford, N. J. Effect of orthographic processes on letter position encoding / N. J.Pitchford, T. Ledgeway, J. Masterson // J. Res. Read. — 2008. — Vol. 31. — N 1. —P. 97–116.179. Pollatsek, A. The role of morphological constituents in reading Finnishcompound words. / A. Pollatsek, J. Hyönä, R. Bertram // J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept.Perform. — 2000. — Vol. 26.

— N 2. — P. 820–833.180. Prinzmetal, W. Cognitive and linguistic factors affect visual feature integration /W. Prinzmetal, M. Millis-Wright // Cognit. Psychol. — 1984. — Vol. 16. — N 3. —P. 305–340.181. Protopapas, A. A comparative quantitative analysis of Greek orthographictransparency / A. Protopapas, E. L. Vlahou // Behav. Res. Methods. — 2009. — Vol. 41.— N 4.

— P. 991–1008.182. Randall, M. How Arabs Read Roman Letters / M. Randall, P. Meara // Read.Foreign Lang. — 1988. — Vol. 4. — N 2. — P. 133–45.183. Ratcliff, R. Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. / R. Ratcliff //Psychol. Bull. — 1993. — Vol. 114. — N 3. — P. 510–532.184. Rayner, K. The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading / K. Rayner //Cognit. Psychol.

— 1975. — Vol. 7. — N 1. — P. 65–81.185. Rayner, K. Eye Guidance in Reading: Fixation Locations within Words / K.206Rayner // Perception. — 1979. — Vol. 8. — N 1. — P. 21–30.186. Rayner, K. Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years ofResearch / K. Rayner // Psychol. Bull. — 1998. — Vol. 124. — N 3. — P. 372–422.187. Rayner, K.

Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visualsearch / K. Rayner // Q. J. Exp. Psychol. — 2009. — Vol. 62. — N 8. — P. 1457–1506.188. Rayner, K. Reading without a fovea / K. Rayner, J. H. Bertera // Science. — 1979.— Vol. 206. — N 4417.

— P. 468–469.189. Rayner, K. Eye movements and the perceptual span in older and younger readers/ K. Rayner, M. S. Castelhano, J. Yang // Psychol. Aging. — 2009. — Vol. 24. — N 3.— P. 755–760.190. Rayner, K. Integrating information across eye movements / K. Rayner, G. W.McConkie, D. Zola // Cognit. Psychol.

— 1980. — Vol. 12. — N 2. — P. 206–226.191. Rayner, K. The availability of useful information to the right of fixation inreading / K. Rayner, A. D. Well, A. Pollatsek, J. H. Bertera // Percept. Psychophys. —1982. — Vol. 31. — N 6. — P. 537–550.192. Reicher, G. M. Perceptual recognition as a function of meaningfulness ofstimulus material / G.

M. Reicher // J. Exp. Psychol. — 1969. — Vol. 81. — N 2. —P. 275–280.193. Reichle, E. D. EZ Reader: An overview of the model and two recent applications/ E. D. Reichle, H. Sheridan // The Oxford Handbook of Reading / ed. by A. Pollatsek,R. Treiman. — New York: Oxford University Press, 2015. — P. 277–290.194. Roux, S. Neighborhood effects in spelling in adults / S. Roux, P.

Bonin //Psychon. Bull. Rev. — 2009. — Vol. 16. — N 2. — P. 369–373.195. Rueckl, J. G. On the interaction of letter transpositions and morphemicboundaries / J. G. Rueckl, A. Rimzhim // Lang. Cogn. Process. — 2011. — Vol. 26. —N 4–6. — P. 482–508.196. Rumelhart, D. E. An interactive activation model of context effects in letterperception: II. The contextual enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of themodel. / D. E. Rumelhart, J.

L. McClelland // Psychol. Rev. — 1982. — Vol. 89. — N 1.207— P. 60–94.197. Rumelhart, D. E. On learning the past tenses of English verbs. / D. E. Rumelhart,J. L. McClelland // Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructureof Cognition / ed. by J. L. McClelland, D. E. Rumelhart, PDP Research Group. —Cambridge: MIT Press, 1986. — P.

216–71.198. Sánchez-Gutiérrez, C. Letter transpositions within and across morphemicboundaries: Is there a cross-language difference? / C. Sánchez-Gutiérrez, K. Rastle //Psychon. Bull. Rev. — 2013. — Vol. 20. — N 5. — P. 988–996.199. Schotter, E. R. Parafoveal processing in reading / E. R. Schotter, B. Angele, K.Rayner // Atten. Percept. Psychophys.

— 2011. — Vol. 74. — N 1. — P. 5–35.200. Segalovich, I. A Fast Morphological Algorithm with Unknown Word GuessingInduced by a Dictionary for a Web Search Engine. / I. Segalovich // Proceedings of theInternational Conference on Machine Learning; Models, Technologies and Applications,MLMTA'03 — s.1.: CSREA Press, 2003. — С. 273–280.201. Segui, J. Priming word recognition with orthographic neighbors: Effects ofrelative prime-target frequency. / J.

Segui, J. Grainger // J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept.Perform. — 1990. — Vol. 16. — N 1. — P. 65–76.202. Seidenberg, M. S. A distributed, developmental model of word recognition andnaming / M. S. Seidenberg, J. L. McClelland // Psychol. Rev. — 1989. — Vol. 96. —N 4. — P. 523–568.203. Skrelin, P. A. A Fully Annotated Corpus of Russian Speech. / P. A. Skrelin, N. B.Volskaya, D.

Kocharov, K. Evgrafova, O. Glotova, V. Evdokimova // Proceedings ofthe 7th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2010.— Valletta: ELRA, 2010. — С. 109–112.204. Taft, M. Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect / M.Taft // Q. J. Exp. Psychol. Sect. A. — 2004. — Vol. 57. — N 4. — P. 745–765.205.

Taft, M. Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words / M. Taft, K. I. Forster //J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. — 1975. — Vol. 14. — N 6. — P. 638–647.206. Tarkiainen, A. Dynamics of visual feature analysis and object-level processing in208face versus letter-string perception / A. Tarkiainen, P. L. Cornelissen, R. Salmelin //Brain. — 2002. — Vol.

125. — N 5. — P. 1125–1136.207. Tydgat, I. Serial position effects in the identification of letters, digits, andsymbols / I. Tydgat, J. Grainger // J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. — 2009. —Vol. 35. — N 2. — P. 480–498.208. Ullman,M. T.Contributionsofmemorycircuitstolanguage:Thedeclarative/procedural model / M. T. Ullman // Cognition. — 2004. — Vol. 92. — N 1.— P. 231–270.209. Veldre, A. Parafoveal preview benefit is modulated by the precision of skilledreaders’ lexical representations / A.

Veldre, S. Andrews // J. Exp. Psychol. Hum.Percept. Perform. — 2015. — Vol. 41. — N 1. — P. 219–232.210. Vitu, F. Optimal landing position in reading isolated words and continuous text /F. Vitu, J. K. O’Regan, M. Mittau // Percept. Psychophys. — 1990. — Vol. 47. — N 6.— P. 583–600.211. Wheeler, D. D. Processes in word recognition / D. D. Wheeler // Cognit. Psychol.— 1970. — Vol. 1. — N 1. — P. 59–85.212. White, S. J. The influence of parafoveal word length and contextual constraint onfixation durations and word skipping in reading / S.

J. White, K. Rayner, S. P.Liversedge // Psychon. Bull. Rev. — 2005. — Vol. 12. — N 3. — P. 466–471.213. Whitney, C. How the brain encodes the order of letters in a printed word: TheSERIOL model and selective literature review / C. Whitney // Psychon. Bull. Rev. —2001. — Vol. 8. — N 2. — P. 221–243.214. Whitney, C. Comparison of the SERIOL and SOLAR theories of letter-positionencoding / C. Whitney // Brain Lang. — 2008.

— Vol. 107. — N 2. — P. 170–178.215. Whitney, C. Why word length only matters in the left visual field / C. Whitney,M. Lavidor // Neuropsychologia. — 2004. — Vol. 42. — N 12. — P. 1680–1688.216. Whitney, C. The SERIOL2 Model of Orthographic Processing [Unpublishedmanuscript]/C.Whitney,Y.Marton//2013.—URL:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237065841_The_SERIOL2_Model_of_Ortho209graphic_Processing (дата обращения: 31.01.2017)217. Williams, C.

C. Previewing the neighborhood: The role of orthographic neighborsas parafoveal previews in reading. / C. C. Williams, M. Perea, A. Pollatsek, K. Rayner //J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. — 2006. — Vol. 32. — N 4. — P. 1072–1082.218. Yap, M. J. The Malay Lexicon Project: A database of lexical statistics for 9,592words / M. J. Yap, S. J. R. Liow, S. B. Jalil, S. S.

B. Faizal // Behav. Res. Methods. —2010. — Vol. 42. — N 4. — P. 992–1003.219. Yan, M. Eye movements guided by morphological structure: Evidence from theUighur language / M. Yan, W. Zhou, H. Shu, R. Yusupu, D. Miao, A. Krügel, R. Kliegl// Cognition. — 2014. — Vol. 132. — N 2. — P. 181–215.220. Zargar, E. S. Transposed-Letter Priming Across Inflectional MorphemeBoundaries / E.