1991) found that a 5-digit memory load speeded pronunciation of low-frequency exception words, despite slowing other word types. They argued that the memory load diverted attention from phonological assembly and prevented it from competing with retrieved phonology so that words most susceptible to such competition-low-frequency exception words-were facilitated. This attentional account was tested against alternatives based on cross talk among lexical or sublexical codes. Initial results supported lexical cross talk: Digit and noun loads produced a weak release-from-competition (RFC) effect, but random shapes and pseudowords produced no such effect, despite requiring more attention. However, subsequent analyses of individual differences showed that not all participants possessed a dual-route architecture in which low-frequency exception words were suffering competition. Among those who were candidates for a dual-route architecture, all memory loads produced RFC; among those who were not, no RFC was found.During the last 2 decades cognitive scientists have developed many models of what might seem at first to be a simple, easy-to-explain skill: the pronunciation of written words. We address two questions on which these models make differing claims. The first is whether pronunciation is accomplished by one mechanism as single-route models suggest or by multiple mechanisms as dual-route and parallel-coding-systems models suggest. The other question is how pronunciations are actually computed within the mechanism or mechanisms that do the job. We begin by reviewing the current status of the debate, then turn to a particular phenomenon observed in a concurrenttask experiment by Paap and Noel (1991) that seems to offer striking support for the dual-route approach. In their experiment, maintaining a concurrent memory load of digits actually speeded the pronunciation of low-frequency words with exceptional spelling-to-pronunciation translations, despite slowing the pronunciation of all other types of words. We report three experiments that, taken together, replicate this phenomenon and support Paap and Noel's assumption that the phenomenon is caused by the attentional capacity demands of the

Although folk wisdom suggests that a smile may enhance physical attractiveness, most studies in the area have failed to consider or control this factor. The present study was intended to examine the impact of smiling on judgements of physical attractiveness and other characteristics stereotypically ascribed to attractive persons. Consistent with predictions, it was found that smiling increased rated attractiveness when compared to a non-smiling neutral expression. The necessity for controlling this factor in studies of attractiveness is therefore indicated. It was also demonstrated that smiling subjects were attributed greater degrees of sincerity, sociability, and competence, but lesser levels of independence and masculinity. Mediation analysis revealed that the eflects of smiling on trait attribution were not due to increases in perceived attractiveness, suggesting that the impact of smiling on ratings of beauty and goodness occurs through independent processes. Potential explanations and implications of these processes were discussed.

A descriptive study of vowel spelling errors made by children first diagnosed with dyslexia (n = 79) revealed that phonological errors, such as bet for bat, outnumbered orthographic errors, such as bate for bait. These errors were more frequent in nonwords than words, suggesting that lexical context helps with vowel spelling. In a second study, children with dyslexia (n = 14) performed identically to ability matched normally developing but younger children in a task that measured the ability to identify a spoken target vowel among similarly articulated items. These findings suggest that the high incidence of vowel substitution errors seen in descriptive studies of spelling do indicate difficulty in phoneme perception for dyslexic spellers but difficulty is appropriate for their level of literacy development but not for their age or grade in school.

No abstract

1991) observed a striking effect in which low-frequency exception words were pronounced faster under a larger memory load although other types of words slowed down. This effect strongly favored dual-route models of pronunciation. S. E. Bernstein and T. H. Carr (1996) reported that only certain selected readers produced Paap and Noel's effect, suggesting individual differences in reading-system architecture. P. M. Pexman and S. J. Lupker (1998) criticized Bernstein and Carr's rinding as artifactual and failed to replicate it with a different way of selecting readers. They also failed to support an alternative individual-difference hypothesis of their own. In the current article, the authors developed a new approach to identifying individual differences and applied the approach to a variety of data. They found little evidence of systematic individual differences in the occurrence of Paap and Noel's effect, and indeed, they found little evidence that the effect could be replicated at all. Therefore, they gave up.