Neighborhood frequency effects in late bilingual phonological neighborhoods

Neighbo hood equency e ec s in la e bilingual
phonological neighbo hoods
E a Ma ia Lue
a,b,*
a
Cha les Uni e si y, Depa men o Linguis ics, English Language and ELT Me hodology, n´
am. Jana Palacha 2, 116 38, P ague 1, Czech Republic
b
Uni e si y o Hambu g, Ins i u e o English and Ame ican S udies, Von-Melle-Pa k 6, 20146, Hambu g, Ge many
ARTICLE INFO
Keywo ds:
La e bilingualism
Neighbo hood equency e ec
Phonological ne wo k
Spoken wo d ecogni ion
Bilingual lexical p ocessing
ABSTRACT
The bilingual men al lexicon is unde s ood as a uni ied sys em con aining wo d o ms om mul iple languages.
P e ious s udies ha e desc ibed how c oss-language phonological simila i y in luences bilingual lexical p o-
cessing, demons a ing ha lexical ac i a ion sp eads bo h wi hin and ac oss languages a he segmen al le el.
The signi icance o c oss-linguis ic phonological neighbo s in bilingual speech p ocessing is well documen ed,
bu less is known abou equency e ec s eme ging om he c oss-language neighbo ing wo ds. In monolingual
spoken wo d ecogni ion, he ‘neighbo hood equency e ec ’ sugges s ha highe - equency neighbo s abso b
mo e ac i a ion and/o inhibi lowe - equency neighbo s wi hin a phonological neighbo hood, po en ially
a ec ing ecogni ion la encies. This s udy examines whe he his e ec ex ends ac oss languages in phonological
neighbo hoods o la e Ge man-English bilinguals. Resul s e eal ha lexical equency a es o Ge man neighbo s
in luence esponse imes o English a ge wo ds in an English lexical decision ask. This inding suppo s a ully
in eg a ed men al lexicon in la e bilinguals (i.e., second language lea ne s) and highligh s he ole o lexical
equency in c oss-language lexical p ocessing.
1. In oduc ion
Spoken wo ds end o be ecognized as e when lexical compe i ion
is educed by ha ing ewe phonologically simila wo ds in a speake 's
men al lexicon (Luce & Pisoni, 1998; Vi e i ch, 2007; Vi e i ch e al.,
2018; Vi e i ch & Luce, 2016; Ya es & Dickinson, 2023; Ziegle e al.,
2003). This e ec has p ima ily been s udied om he iewpoin o
phonological neighbo hood densi y, a me ic ha conside s he numbe
o phonologically close wo ds ha exis in a lexicon. T adi ionally,
psycholinguis ics has de ined phonological neighbo s as wo ds di e ing
by a single phonological segmen , he Le ensh ein dis ance (Landaue &
S ee e , 1973; Le ensh ein, 1966; Vi e i ch & Luce, 2016), e en hough
al e na i e quan i ica ions o phonological neighbo hoods can be ound
in he li e a u e (Kapa sinski, 2006; Siew & Cas o, 2023; Vi e i ch &
Cas o, 2015). Wi hin he amewo k o ac i a ion sp eading (Luce e al.,
2000; Vi e i ch & Luce, 1998; Ya es & Dickinson, 2023), i is heo ized
ha phonological o e laps be ween wo ds lead o co-ac i a ion o
sha ed segmen s. When a wo d has nume ous phonological neighbo s,
ac i a ion is dis ibu ed among hem, c ea ing a delay in he ecogni ion
o he a ge wo d wi hin he neighbo hood (Vi e i ch & Luce, 2016). A
highe densi y o phonological neighbo hoods educes he ac i a ion
alloca ed o each indi idual wo d and leads o lowe o e all ac i a ion
o each wo d, including he a ge wo d i sel . While his e ec can be
seen as passi e ac i a ion sha ing ac oss lexical candida es, heo e ical
accoun s o ac i e lexical compe i ion, whe e an ac i e i em inhibi s i s
neighbo s, a e also equen ly encoun e ed (Goldinge e al., 1989;
Vi e i ch & Luce, 2016; Ya es & Dickinson, 2023). Chen and Mi man
(2012) model ac i a ion sp eading as a ade-o be ween inhibi o y and
acili a i e links be ween lexical neighbo s, whe e s ongly ac i a ed
wo ds ha e an inhibi o y e ec and weakly ac i a ed neighbo s ha e a
acili a i e e ec on wo d ecogni ion. Ac i a ion sp eading is hen
dependen on how much inhibi ion and acili a ion he e is wi hin a
neighbo hood. The in luence o phonological neighbo hood densi y on
wo d ecogni ion is well-suppo ed by monolingual s udies (see Ya es &
Dickinson, 2023, o a e iew); simila e ec s ha e been obse ed in
mul ilingual s udies (de Bo & Ba yi, 2022; K oll & Ma, 2017). Bilingual
speake s, especially hose using ypologically ela ed languages wi h
signi ican wo d o m simila i ies (e.g., Ge manic languages, such as
English, Ge man, Du ch), expe ience inc eased ac i a ion sp eading in
bilingual phonological neighbo hoods, as wo ds om mul iple lan-
guages become lexical compe i o s (e.g., Canseco-Gonzalez e al., 2010;
Dijks a e al., 2010; F ances e al., 2021; Lag ou e al., 2011; Lemh¨
o e
* Cha les Uni e si y, Depa men o Linguis ics, English Language and ELT Me hodology, n´
am. Jana Palacha 2, 116 38, P ague 1, Czech Republic.
E-mail add ess: [email p o ec ed].
Con en s lis s a ailable a ScienceDi ec
Ac a Psychologica
jou nal homepage: www.else ie .com/loca e/ac psy
h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.ac psy.2025.105863
Recei ed 26 Feb ua y 2025; Recei ed in e ised o m 10 Oc obe 2025; Accep ed 27 Oc obe 2025
Ac a Psychologica 261 (2025) 105863
A ailable online 5 No embe 2025
0001-6918/© 2025 The Au ho . Published by Else ie B.V. This is an open access a icle unde he CC BY license (
h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/ ).
e al., 2008; Lue , 2025a; Ma ian e al., 2008; Schulpen e al., 2003).
Theo e ical accoun s o c oss-linguis ic ac i a ion sp eading in spoken
wo d ecogni ion (Lewy & G osjean, 2008; Schwa z & K oll, 2007;
Shook & Ma ian, 2013) p edic ha lexical ac i a ion p opaga es
h ough sublexical ea u es and ac oss languages o mul ilingual in-
di iduals, ul ima ely leading o compe i ion e ec s a he lexical le el
(Vi e i ch & Luce, 1998, 1999). This means ha c oss-language
phonological neighbo s, such as English climb [klaɪm] and Ge man
“Leim”/ Engl. glue [laɪm], ha e a simila e ec o same-language
neighbo s wi hin hei neighbo hoods (Lue , 2025a).
The impac o ac i a ion sp eading wi hin phonological neighbo -
hoods is modula ed by he equency o he segmen s and wo ds (Luce &
La ge, 2001; Vi e i ch & Luce, 1999), wi h mo e equen ly occu ing
i ems showing highe deg ees o ac i a ion. Whe he lexical equency is
de ined acco ding o es ing ac i a ion le el (Dell, 1986; Luce & Pisoni,
1998), o whe he i is seen as connec ion weigh s be ween a lexical
ep esen a ion and i s segmen s (Chen & Mi man, 2012), highe e-
quency wo ds a e ac i a ed mo e s ongly and as e , leading o sho e
esponse la encies in wo d ecogni ion. The highe baseline ac i a ion o
equen wo ds in linguis ic memo y leads o less cogni i e e o o
hei e ie al (Belke e al., 2005; Bo owsky & Masson, 1999). Lexical
equency e ec s a e commonly explained by lea ning e ec s, assuming
ha lea ning inc eases ac i a ion le els o wo d ep esen a ions
(B ysbae , Mande a, & Keulee s, 2017; Col hea e al., 2001). Al e -
na i ely, equency e ec s may be conside ed as con ounds o o he
lexical ea u es such as wo d leng h and age o acquisi ion (B ysbae ,
Mande a, & Keulee s, 2017), as hese a iables a e ypically highly
co ela ed in i s (B ysbae & Biemille , 2016; N. C. Ellis, 2002;
F auen elde e al., 1993; S o kel e al., 2006) and second (Lue , 2023)
languages.
While lexical equency plays a cen al ole in models o spoken wo d
ecogni ion (e.g., Neighbo hood Ac i a ion Model. TRACE), wi h i s
e ec s on wo d ecogni ion well a es ed in di e en languages (e.g.,
B ysbae e al., 2011, 2019; B ysbae & New, 2009; Fe and e al.,
2010), li le a en ion has been paid o equency e ec s a ising no om
he a ge wo d bu he neighbo ing wo ds in a phonological neigh-
bo hood. F equencies o neighbo ing wo ds can ha e a ying deg ees o
in luence on wo d ecogni ion. Acco ding o a passi e lexical compe i-
ion accoun in phonological neighbo hoods, high- equency wo ds a e
sugges ed o cons i u e s onge compe i o s as hey abso b mo e o he
p esen ac i a ion (Luce & Pisoni, 1998). This di e s ac i a ion away
om lowe - equency wo ds. Depending on he equency a e o a
a ge wo d, i may be a ec ed in di e en ways: i neighbo s a e o
highe lexical equencies han he a ge wo d, hey ake mo e o he
ac i a ion, esul ing in slowe esponse la encies o he a ge ; i a ge
wo ds show he highes equency a es, hey a e no p edic ed o be
delayed. Al e na i ely, highe - equency wo ds may inhibi ac i a ion
o lowe - equency wo ds, esul ing in highe - equency wo ds
monopolizing a la ge sha e o he ac i a ion wi hin a neighbo hood.
Rega dless o he ac i a ion mechanics, he “neighbo hood equency
e ec ” mani es s as he in luence o he equency o phonological
neighbo s on he speed and accu acy wi h which a spoken wo d is
ecognized (And ews, 1989; F auen elde e al., 1993).
Neighbo hood equency e ec s play a cen al ole in a ious
cogni i e linguis ic asks, including pe cep ual iden i ica ion (Di ks
e al., 2001; Pisoni e al., 1985), whe e wo d iden i ica ion is ypically
supe io when a ge wo ds hemsel es a e o highe lexical equency
bu he neighbo hood consis s o low- equency wo ds. Neighbo hood
equency e ec s a e also c ucial de e mine s o wo d memo y, and in
pa icula sho - e m memo y. High- equency wo ds in spa se, low-
equency neighbo hoods end o be mo e easily ecalled han low-
equency wo ds in dense, high- equency neighbo hoods (Goldinge
e al., 1991; Rooden ys e al., 2002), demons a ing an ac i e ole o
neighbo hood equency on lexical memo y. Fu he mo e, neighbo -
hood equency e ec s eme ge in pic u e naming (Baus e al., 2008;
Vi e i ch & Somme s, 2003, bu no e he di e ence in he sugges ed
di ec ion o he e ec ), speech e o s (Vi e i ch, 1997), as well as speech
p oduc ion in i s language acquisi ion (Newman & Ge man, 2002).
Fu he unde sco ing he impo ance o he neighbo hood equency
e ec in wo d ecogni ion a e s udies on phonological alse memo ies
(Roedige & McDe mo , 1995; Somme s & Lewis, 1999). When asked o
ecall a lis o phonologically neighbo ing wo ds, highe equency
neighbo s end o be mis-selec ed (e.g., alsely emembe ing “line”
ins ead o “lime”). In sum, neighbo hood equency e ec s in luence
phono-lexical p ocessing on a ious dimensions, making hem an
impo an aspec o lexical cogni ion.
The majo i y o exis ing s udies on he neighbo hood equency e -
ec in lexical p ocessing in es iga ed speech p oduc ion and isual
wo d ecogni ion. S udies on spoken wo d ecogni ion include Luce and
Pisoni (1998) who ound ha highe - equency neighbo s aise lexical
compe i ion because hey aise he o e all le el o ac i i y wi hin a
neighbo hood, whe e mul iple simila wo ds a e ac i a ed a he same
ime, making i ha de o se le on he co ec a ge wo d. Thus, a high-
equency neighbo hood causes ecogni ion delays in a ge wo ds.
Simila indings o F ench we e epo ed by Du ou and F auen elde
(2010). Fu he mo e, accu acy o wo d judgmen seems o be a ec ed
nega i ely by he p esence o high- equency neighbo s in Spanish
phonological neighbo hoods (Ce e a-C espo & Gonzalez-Al a ez,
2019).
No all s udies o audi o y wo d ecogni ion ha e come o he same
conclusion (e.g., Fo s e & Shen, 1996; Hameau e al., 2021; Sea s e al.,
1995, 2006; Wagenmake s e al., 2008), and in he wo d p oduc ion
domain, he opposi e indings a e well es ablished: high- equency
neighbo s ac ually acili a e a ge wo d e ie al in English and Span-
ish (e.g., Vi e i ch & Luce, 2016; Vi e i ch & Somme s, 2003). This
e lec s he di e en demands o he wo modali ies pe cep ion and
p oduc ion.
Conce ning bilingual wo d ecogni ion, no s udies o da e ha e
speci ically ocused on neighbo hood equency e ec s esul ing om
c oss-language neighbo s. The p esen s udy was designed o shed ligh
on his issue and de e mine whe he spoken wo d ecogni ion o
English-as-a-second-language (o “L2”) is in luenced by Ge man-as-a-
i s -language (o “L1”) in la e bilinguals. The indings will p o ide
cues as o he complexi y o lexical p ocessing in speake s o mul iple
languages.
1.1. Pa e ns o bilingual phonological neighbo hoods
Since ac i a ion sp eads along phonological segmen s, phonological
simila i y is a c ucial conside a ion (Gahl & S and, 2016; Lue , 2023,
2025a). I has been p oposed ha close neighbo s cons i u e s onge
compe i o s o a ge wo ds han mo e dis an neighbo s (e.g., Chen &
Mi man, 2012; Mi man & Ki edge, 2010), a ibu ing phonological
simila i y majo in luence on spoken wo d ecogni ion in mono- and
bilingual s udies. The one-segmen neighbo me ic be ween wo d o ms
(i.e., Le ensh ein dis ance) can be quan i ied based on mo e nuanced
measu es ha weigh indi idual phonological ea u es (e.g., on ness,
nasali y, e c.; see sec ion 3.6 o mo e de ails), esul ing in phonological
neighbo hood pa e ns ha conside phonological closeness be ween
wo d o ms ha di e by one phonological segmen .
A key ac o in equency e ec s is he o e all equency dis ibu ion
wi hin a phonological neighbo hood. I he a ge wo d has he highes
lexical equency a e, he neighbo hood is p edic ed o ha e less in-
luence on ecogni ion compa ed o cases whe e neighbo s ha e highe
lexical equencies. Figs. 1 and 2 illus a e di e en equency dis i-
bu ions wi hin bilingual phonological neighbo hoods, which a e ex-
pec ed o lead o di e en esponse la encies o he English a ge
wo ds. The ecogni ion o bo h “hin ” and “ ly” is assumed o be in lu-
enced by he lexical equency a es o hei espec i e neighbo s and he
phonological simila i y o wo d o ms, ega dless o he language.
Because “hin ” is a low- equency wo d wi h English neighbo s ha a e
bo h lowe in equency and less phonologically simila (indica ed
E.M. Lue
Ac a Psychologica 261 (2025) 105863
2
h ough hinne links), i is expec ed o be mo e a ec ed by high-
equency, phonologically close Ge man neighbo s. In con as , “ ly”
is phonologically mo e dis an om i s highes - equency neighbo
(Ge man “ ei” / Engl. ee) and is he e o e expec ed o be mo e s ongly
in luenced by highe - equency and phonologically close English
neighbo s such as “lie” and “ ligh ”.
Bilingual phonological neighbo hoods can a y in complexi y based
on phonological simila i y and equency pa e ns in each language-
speci ic sec ion o a neighbo hood. Recen me hodological ad ances in
lexical sciences ha e in oduced he inno a i e app oach o s udying he
men al lexicon as a lexical ne wo k, emphasizing he in e connec ed
na u e o wo d o ms (see Fig. 3). The posi ion o a ge wo ds wi hin
hese lexical ne wo ks ha e been shown o in luence lexical p ocessing.
This includes ac o s such as densi y o a ne wo k egion (Siew & Vi e-
i ch, 2016), he in e connec edness o he phonological neighbo hood
(Chan & Vi e i ch, 2009; Lue , 2025a; Ya es, 2013), and he key s uc-
u al posi ions held by a ge wo ds in a lexical ne wo k (Golds ein &
Vi e i ch, 2017; Vi e i ch & Golds ein, 2014). In bilingual phonological
ne wo ks, such as he L1-Ge man-L2-English one shown in Fig. 3, he
equency dis ibu ion o neighbo s in each indi idual language, as well
as wi hin he in eg a ed bilingual lexicon, is a c i ical ac o o conside .
Fig. 3 illus a es he a iabili y o phonological neighbo hoods (and
hei ex ended neighbo hoods) in e ms o he numbe o neighbo s,
hei phonological simila i y, and lexical equency (which co esponds
o node size in Fig. 3). I is e iden ha no all neighbo s ha e he po-
en ial o exe he same in luence, and lexical p ocessing la gely de-
pends on he speci ic phonological and equency composi ion o a gi en
neighbo hood. The sp ead o co-ac i a ion can be p edic ed by he
numbe o neighbo s, phonological simila i y be ween a ge wo ds and
neighbo s, neighbo hood equency ela i e o a ge wo d equency,
and he in eg a ion o English and Ge man wo d o ms in bilingual
lexica. Phonological ne wo k science p o ides a aluable amewo k o
con olling hese a iables, he eby aiding he s udy o spoken wo d
ecogni ion.
Fig. 1. A ep esen a ion o he phonological neighbo hood o English “hin ”.
Da k nodes ep esen Ge man phonological neighbo s; ligh -g ay nodes ep e-
sen English phonological neighbo s. Node size co esponds o lexical equency
a e. The L2-English neighbo s (CEFR p o iciency le el C1) a e gene ally o
lowe lexical equency, while he c oss-language L1-Ge man neighbo hood
con ains a ious high- equency wo ds as well as close phonological neighbo s
(indica ed ia line s eng h).
Fig. 2. A ep esen a ion o he phonological neighbo hood o English “ ly”.
Da k nodes ep esen Ge man phonological neighbo s; ligh -g ay nodes ep e-
sen English phonological neighbo s. Node size co esponds o lexical equency
a e. The L2-English neighbo s (CEFR p o iciency le el C1) and he L2-English
neighbo s a e o simila lexical equency as he L1-Ge man neighbo s. The
highe - equency English neighbo s a e phonologically simila o he a ge
(indica ed ia line s eng h).
Fig. 3. Pa ial bilingual phonological ne wo k. Ligh -g ay nodes ep esen L2-
English wo ds (CEFR p o iciency le el C1), da k nodes ep esen L1-Ge man
wo ds, whi e nodes ep esen wo d o ms sha ed by bo h languages. Node
size co esponds o lexical equency a e. Link s eng h co esponds o
phonological simila i y.
E.M. Lue
Ac a Psychologica 261 (2025) 105863
3
This s udy aims o b oaden he scope o esea ch on he neighbo -
hood equency e ec by s udying i om a bilingual pe spec i e. The
esea ch ques ion explo ed he e conce ns he in luence o lexical e-
quency o Ge man phonological neighbo s on L2-English a ge wo ds.
A e Ge man neighbo s and hei lexical equency a es p edic i e o
he e ie al o English a ge wo ds? Based on he assump ion ha
Ge man neighbo s play a signi ican ole in bilingual wo d ecogni ion,
i is hypo hesized ha wo d ecogni ion will be delayed by high-
equency Ge man neighbo s wi hin he neighbo hood, due o hei e -
ec on ac i a ion sp eading.
Unde s anding he in e ac ions be ween languages in mul ilingual
speake s allows c ucial insigh s in o lexical cogni ion, pa icula ly gi en
he g owing p opo ion o mul ilingual indi iduals in Eu opean socie ies
and beyond (Siemund, 2023). Dynamics o ac i a ion sp eading in
bilingual phonological neighbo hoods se e as key e idence o an in-
eg a ed men al lexicon in mul ilinguals. I bilingual lexical p ocessing is
d i en by ac i a ion s eng h and he dep h o memo y ep esen a ions
shaped by lexical equency in he dominan ( i s ) language, his could
o e new pe spec i es on ac i a ion sp eading in second language
cogni ion. Such indings can con ibu e o models o bilingual lexical
o ganiza ion.
2. Da a a ailabili y
The da a and code o eplica ion o he esul s can be ound in he
Supplemen a y Ma e ial and on he Zenodo eposi o y unde he link:
h ps://doi.o g/10.5281/zenodo.17431193.
3. Me hods
Ge man-English la e bilinguals we e es ed in audi o y wo d ecog-
ni ion in a ious expe imen al condi ions ha a ied he equencies o
he Ge man neighbo hoods o he English a ge wo ds. Based on p e-
ious monolingual s udies o neighbo hood equency e ec s in spoken
wo d ecogni ion, i was expec ed ha highe - equency neighbo s ha
a e phonologically mo e simila o he a ge wo ds would lead o longe
esponse la encies as mo e lexical ac i a ion is inco po a ed by hose
neighbo s.
In a i s s ep, a bilingual phonological lexicon ha combines L1-
Ge man and L2-English was cons uc ed. Unde conside a ion o
a ious ne wo k me ics, a numbe o a ge wo ds we e selec ed and
con olled o addi ional ac o s (see sec ion 3.6.). As a second s ep,
pa icipan s we e es ed in hei knowledge o all a ge wo ds as well as
all neighbo ing wo ds ha we e iden i ied in he ne wo k model. Las ly,
he a ge wo ds we e es ed in an audi o y lexical decision ask, which
measu ed accu acy o wo d judgmen s as well as eac ion imes o he
English a ge wo ds.
3.1. Phonological ne wo ks
The L1-Ge man ocabula y was based on da a ob ained om he
SUBTLEX-DE Co pus (B ysbae e al., 2011), a co pus o Ge man sub-
i les in ilm and TV, ha is a ailable on he Clea pond da abase (Ma ian
e al., 2012). I is conside ed one o he bes equency measu es o
unde g adua e s uden speech (B ysbae & New, 2009). The English
ocabula y was ob ained om he English Vocabula y P o ile da abase,
which is a collec ion o L2- English ocabula y based on he Camb idge
Lea ne Co pus, he la ges co pus o English as a second language
(Capel, 2015). Vocabula y co esponding o p o iciency le el CEFR-C1
was used (see below o a desc ip ion o CEFR p o iciency le els).
In bo h ocabula ies, p ope nouns we e emo ed and lemma iza ion
was applied o emo e he majo i y o in lec ions. Only ex emely high-
equency in lec ed o ms we e e ained, such as in lec ions o he En-
glish wo ds “be” and “ha e” and he Ge man co espondences “sein” and
“haben” and pa iciple II o ms which can unc ion as adjec i es
(Ge man “gemach ”/ Engl. “done”). Ge man in lec ions ela ed o
g amma ical gende o nouns (e.g., “A z -¨
A z in”/ Engl. male doc o -
emale doc o ) we e also e ained. Cli ics we e spli in o hei cons i u-
en pa s (e.g., English “i 's” ➔ “i ”, “is”; Ge man “au s” ➔ “au ”, “das”/
Engl. “on he”).
In Ge man, in equen loan wo ds and compound nouns consis ing o
English and Ge man wo ds (e.g., “Ac ionszene”/ Engl. “ac ion scene”)
we e emo ed. Addi ionally, speci ic medical ocabula y and abb e i-
a ions (e.g., “Dino”/ Engl. “dinosau ”) we e excluded om he da a, as
well as swea wo ds and numbe s la ge han 12 and no mul iples o 10.
Lemma ized Ge man wo ds ha we e no con ained in he SUBTLEX-DE
co pus we e emo ed om he da ase (N =414 wo ds, 3.7.% o he
Ge man ocabula y). This was necessa y because lexical equency a es
o he Ge man wo ds we e ob ained om ha co pus (i.e., ia he
Clea pond da abase). All lemma ized English wo d o ms o he C1-
English ocabula y could be ound in he English Clea pond da abase.
The L1-Ge man ocabula y consis s o 14,546 wo ds; he C1-English
ocabula y con ains 5387 wo ds. The bilingual ne wo k esul ed om a
me ging o he wo ocabula ies (also see Lue , 2025a).
Nex , phone ic ansc ip ions o he Ge man and English wo ds we e
copied om he Clea pond da abase in he o m o CP-SAMPA an-
sc ip ions. The Ge man ansc ip ions we e manually checked and some
we e co ec ed. The ansc ip ions we e hen al e ed in a ious ways:
do s be ween symbols we e emo ed and ansc ip ions consis ing o
mul iple symbols we e eplaced wi h single symbols (e.g., “E3” was
eplaced wi h “e”). Homophonous wo d o ms we e me ged (e.g.,
Ge man “bis-Biss”/ Engl. un il-bi e; English “see-sea”). Then, he an-
sc ibed Ge man and English wo ds we e en e ed in o an O acle 12c Big-
Da a-Li e da abase (B yla, 2015) and he unc ion edi _dis ance o he
package “u l_ma ch” was used o compa e all wo d o ms o one ano he
and iden i y one-segmen phonological neighbo s ha di e by a single
segmen h ough ei he addi ion, dele ion, o subs i u ion (Landaue &
S ee e , 1973). Table 1 shows an example esul om he O acle
da abase. (See Table 2.)
Sepa a e analyses we e conduc ed o he Ge man ocabula y, he
English ocabula y, and he bilingual Ge man-English ocabula y,
esul ing in lis s o phonological neighbo s in he h ee ocabula ies.
Phonological ne wo ks we e c ea ed o each o he h ee ocabu-
la ies, wi h he en i ely o all wo ds o a ocabula y being en e ed and
all one-segmen neighbo s being linked o one ano he . The R package
“ig aph” (Csa di & Nepusz, 2006) and he ne wo k so wa e “Gephi”
(Bas ian e al., 2009) we e used o ne wo k s a is ics and isualiza ions.
3.2. Pa icipan s
Six y-nine i s -language use s o Ge man (iden i ica ion o 53 as
emale, 11 as male, and 5 as non-bina y; age M =23.4 yea s, ange
18–26) who a e majo ing in English S udies a a Ge man uni e si y we e
ec ui ed and ga e w i en consen o pa icipa e in a ocabula y
ques ionnai e and an audi o y lexical decision ask. Second language
p o iciency can be es ima ed based on he ‘Common Eu opean F ame-
wo k o Re e ence’, which p oposes six p o iciency le els, s a ing wi h
Table 1
S ing dis ances (edi dis ances) be ween he wo d “a” and o he wo ds in he L2-
English lexicon. Dis ance measu emen s a e based on SAMPA ansc ip ions o
he o iginal phone ic ansc ip ions (IPA). S ing dis ances o “1” a e ea ed as
phonological neighbo s.
wo d IPA CP-
SAMPA
es ed
agains
IPA CP-
SAMPA
S ing
dis ance
a eɪeI able eɪbl eIbl 2
a eɪeI abou əbaʊ 5baU 5
a eɪeI abo e əbʌ 5bV 4
a eɪeI ache eɪk eIk 1
a eɪeI add æd 1d 2
a eɪeI agains əg
ε
ns 5gEns 6
a eɪeI aim em eIm 1
E.M. Lue
Ac a Psychologica 261 (2025) 105863
4
he beginne le els A1 and A2, ollowed by in e media e le els B1 and
B2, and he ad anced le els C1 and C2 (see Council o Eu ope, 2018). All
pa icipan s sel - epo ed English p o iciency a le el C1 (ad anced),
which was he a e age p o iciency equi ed o admission o he uni-
e si y s udy p og am. None o hem had any hea ing o language dis-
o de s. Aside om Ge man as hei i s and English as hei second
languages, i pa icipan s knew a hi d language, hey only had basic
knowledge o i . They ecei ed cou se c edi s o hei pa icipa ion.
Da a we e collec ed be ween Ap il and Decembe 2024. The s udy was
app o ed by he e hics e iew boa d o Cha les Uni e si y ( e e ence
numbe UKFF/46874/2023).
3.3. Vocabula y ques ionnai e
50 English wo ds ypically known by L2-English lea ne s a lowe
and in e media e p o iciency le els (A1, A2, B1, B2) we e selec ed as
s imuli (see Appendix Table A o an o e iew o he a ge wo ds and
hei neighbo s). They we e con olled o a a ie y o ac o s (see sec-
ion 3.6) bu di e ed sys ema ically in e ms o hei Ge man neigh-
bo hood equencies. The cons ain s ha we e imposed by he s udy
design p e en ed mo e wo ds om being eligible o es ing. Re-
qui emen s included a ge wo ds o be o lowe lexical equency as
such wo ds a e known o ampli y neighbo hood e ec s (And ews, 1992;
Lue , 2025a; Sea s e al., 1995), while a he same ime ha ing a leas
50 % Ge man neighbo s in he phonological neighbo hood. As English
and Ge man neighbo hood densi ies and equencies a e ypically
co ela ed (densi ies: =0.5; equencies: =0.7), high-densi y/
equency English neighbo hoods a e cha ac e ized by high-densi y/
equency c oss-language Ge man neighbo hoods. This mean ha
some combina ions o low- equency English a ge plus medium- o
highe - equen Ge man neighbo s we e a e ins ances o be ound in
he bilingual lexicon. This educed he numbe o a ailable s imuli. In
addi ion, wo ds om speci ic ne wo k densi y egions we e chosen as
a ge s, excluding o he po en ial English a ge s. Please see sec ion 3.6.
o a desc ip ion o each con olled ac o .
Knowledge o all in ol ed Ge man neighbo ing wo ds was expec ed
based on he i s -language Ge man p o iciency o he pa icipan s. All
pa icipan s we e es ed on hei knowledge o he English wo ds
in ol ed in he expe imen , bo h a ge wo ds and hei phonological
neighbo s. In an online su ey, pa icipan s we e asked o a e hei
amilia i y wi h he wo ds, i.e., whe he hey knew a wo d (answe op-
ions: “I know he wo d”, “I ha e ne e hea d he wo d”, “I am no su e”).
The amilia i y a ings we e ob ained om isually p esen ed wo ds.
Wo ds we e emo ed om he da a se when mo e han 30 % o pa -
icipan s s a ed ha hey did no know a wo d o we e unsu e. This was
he case wi h one wo d, owl, a neighbo o he a ge wo ds owl and ile.
Fowl was aken ou o neighbo hood densi y and equency calcula ions.
The o he a ge and neighbo ing wo ds we e well known by he
pa icipan s.
80 % o he pa icipan s comple ed he expe imen sho ly be o e
hey ook he ocabula y ques ionnai e, and in he la ge majo i y o
cases bo h asks we e comple ed wi hin one hou . I may ha e been
possible ha he 20 % who ook he ocabula y ques ionnai e be o e he
expe imen we e p imed by he wo ds hey we e exposed o in he
ques ionnai e.
3.4. Pseudo-neighbo s
Second language pe cep ion may be in luenced by he i s language
o lis ene s, leading o con usabili y o segmen al con as s on he lexical
le el (Bohn & Flege, 1992; Rocca e al., 2025). A well- esea ched aspec
o his is he English [æ] - [
ε
] con as ha may be di icul o pe cei e
o many Ge man lea ne s o English (Llompa , 2021; Llompa &
Reinisch, 2020). The di icul y in dis inguishing hese owels leads o
addi ional phonological neighbo s ha a e based on e oneous pe cep-
ion. Fo ins ance, he English wo ds “beg” [b
ε
ɡ] and “bag” [bæɡ] may
sound iden ical o Ge man lis ene s a beginning bu also in e media e
and ad anced le els (see Llompa , 2021), which may esul in di e en
pe cep ual phonological neighbo hoods as compa ed o na i e speake s
o English. Taking hese pe cep ual accen s in o accoun can lead o a
be e es ima ion o a phonological neighbo hood in second language
lea ne s (Amengual, 2016; Da cy e al., 2013; Webe & Cu le , 2004).
This s udy ook in o accoun he ollowing phonological ea u es ha
we e assumed o skew Ge man L2-English lea ne s' pe cep ion a p o-
iciency le el C1 (see Hickey, 2019): (a) he pe cep ion o [æ] as [
ε
], (b)
oicing in wo d-ini ial sibilan s (e.g., [zi:] o English “sea”), and (c)
de oicing in wo d- inal obs uen s (e.g., [bɪk] o English “big”). Fi e
a ge wo ds we e a ec ed: egg, ield, kind, loud, and ube. Using he
phone ic ansc ip ions o he Ge man-accen ed wo ds [
ε
k, iːl , kaɪn ,
laʊ , uːp] phonological neighbo s in Ge man and English we e sea ched
in he phonological ne wo ks o he languages and a o al o 22 wo ds
we e added o hei espec i e neighbo hoods. The [
ε
k] neighbo hood
Table 2
Ta ge wo ds and neighbo hood equency s a is ics, including Ge man, English,
and pseudo neighbo s in bo h languages.
GERMAN ENGLISH
Ta ge wo d Sum o all
equencies wi hin
a neighbo hood
S anda d
de ia ion
Sum o all
equencies wi hin
a neighbo hood
S anda d
de ia ion
Bel 1391.3 249.4 664 164.4
Bike 1698.9 568.9 4821.7 1593.5
Climb 119.3 29.7 96.6 32.4
Clue 84.3 14.1 158.6 47.1
Cos 28.3 12.2 391 129.4
Dawn 12,402.4 2104.1 498.4 276.2
Dime 81.5 18.4 1989.6 1121.9
Down 2750.9 1337.4 321.8 114.9
Eas 352.4 164.9 466.4 130.7
Egg 21,498.6 6546.5 2357.1 693.3
False 182.5 122.1 125.7 58.3
Field 1139.9 455.7 186.5 48.8
File 1389.1 255.3 1536.8 210.3
Floo 14.8 3.3 3591.5 2059.7
Fly 203.8 59.1 221.1 48.1
Foo 37.7 10.7 5004.4 1632.2
Fuss 100.6 28.5 322 115.2
Gues 972.8 221.2 5810.7 1664
Guil 833.8 211.6 168 12.9
Hall 424.9 100.5 2026 307
Help 161.3 28.6 513.1 260.3
Hin 1531.1 182.9 309.8 132.1
Hi e 214.4 25.1 500.7 145.6
Hou _ou 12,332.6 1819.5 3876.7 2228.3
How 826.9 100.4 4278.7 1325.5
Kind 1903.7 484.5 1318.8 415.6
Le 122 57.2 2460 1385
Los 162.4 25.9 1095.5 289.9
Loud 476 75.6 4008.7 1452
Mel 1156.5 266.7 128.6 56.4
Mess 14,941.9 5611.9 3053.5 757.7
Mile 4423.8 628.4 8030 2333.9
Min 6821.3 2077.9 494.4 175.5
Mou h 83.1 25.5 83.6 32.1
Now 2269.9 495.9 9088.6 2599.3
Ough 1800 354.4 29,609 6719.9
Ou 11,970.4 1440.6 1790.2 359.4
Owl 11,045.5 1785.6 5020.1 1264.9
Piece_peace 412.8 80.5 152.3 40.9
Pile 1097.9 296.4 488.5 117.2
Shi 252.9 56.1 98.6 21.5
Shoo 3093.6 1040.1 658.7 105.9
Shou 371.4 84.5 3951.7 1918.4
Talk 946.7 221.8 239.1 118.1
Time 235.8 63.7 187.6 23.2
Town 46.1 8.9 1544.6 660.4
Tube 1306.1 506.9 8427 3737.9
Ve 5534 1101.8 7837.1 1590.7
Zoo 44,648.4 9430.8 59,371.1 15,064.6
E.M. Lue
Ac a Psychologica 261 (2025) 105863
5

ecei ed addi ional Ge man “Ecke” (Engl. co ne ), Ge man “Leck” (Engl.
leak), Engl. “back”, “pack”, “lack”, sack”, “bag”. The [ iːl ] neighbo hood
ecei ed he addi ional Ge man wo d “Feld” (Engl. ield) and he English
wo d “ aul ”. The [kaɪn ] neighbo hood ecei ed addi ional Ge man
“Feind” (Engl. enemy), Ge man “Kind” (Engl. child), and English “pin ”.
The [laʊ ] neighbo hood ecei ed addi ional Ge man “Land” (Engl.
land), “Las ” (Engl. load), Ge man “Hau ” (Engl. skin), and English
“ ou e”, “shou ”, “ou ”, and “doub ”. The [ uːp] neighbo hood ecei ed
addi ional Ge man “ aub” (Engl. dea ), Ge man “Tipp” (Engl. ip), and
English “soup”. Phonological simila i ies be ween he pseudo-neighbo s
and hei neighbo hoods we e calcula ed and included in he neigh-
bo hood me ics. The equencies o he neighbo hoods we e upda ed o
include he indi idual equencies o hose pseudo-neighbo s in he
Ge man and English Clea pond da abases.
3.5. Lexical decision expe imen
An audi o y lexical decision ask was c ea ed wi h PsychoPy
2023.2.3 (Pei ce e al., 2019). The p esen a ion o s imulus wo ds was
andomized, and accu acy in wo d judgmen s as well as eac ion ime
measu emen s o co ec judgmen s we e ex ac ed o analysis. Audio
s imuli o he 50 eal wo ds and 50 pseudo-wo ds (o “non-wo ds”) we e
ob ained om he MALD da abase (Tucke e al., 2019), wi h all wo ds
being spoken by an Ame ican male speake . His accen can be desc ibed
as Midland o Wes e n Uni ed S a es, possibly Colo ado o Cali o nia.
His speech showed a clea co -caugh dis inc ion and no aces o
No he n Ci ies Vowel Shi o Sou he n phone ic ea u es (as e alua ed
by Cha GPT based on a sample o 5 eco dings).
The pseudo-wo ds di e ed om eal English o Ge man wo ds by
one segmen . Wo ds ha could mis akenly be pe cei ed as an accen ed
English wo d by Ge man lea ne s o English we e no selec ed as pseudo-
wo ds (e.g., /ʧis/ which could be pe cei ed as an accep able p onunci-
a ion o “cheese” by Ge man lis ene s).
The expe imen was made a ailable online on he Pa lo ia pla o m
ia a link ha was gi en o he pa icipan s. Each pa icipan was es ed
indi idually a hei own compu e s; hey we e ins uc ed o use head-
phones. T ials s a ed wi h he p esen a ion o a small c oss on he sc een
o 500 ms. A e ha , a ge wo ds and pseudo-wo ds appea ed in
successi e, andomized o de and only once be o e pa icipan s had o
decide (as quickly as possible) whe he a wo d hey hea d is a eal En-
glish wo d o a pseudo-wo d by p essing ei he “a” o “k” on hei
keyboa ds. Response imes we e measu ed om he onse o he s im-
ulus o he onse o he key p ess esponse. Each new i em was p esen ed
500 ms. a e he p e ious esponse. In e - ial in e als we e no ixed
bu pa icipan s we e gi en in ini e ime o espond o a a ge wo d
be o e a ial ended. The e was no planned pause (o imeou ) du ing he
expe imen .
P io o he expe imen , pa icipan s we e gi en se en p ac ice ials
o amilia ize hemsel es wi h he p ocedu e and o adjus he olume o
he audi o y s imuli. The p ac ice ials we e excluded om he ana-
lyses. The expe imen las ed abou 10 min.
3.6. Va iables
3.6.1. English neighbo hood equency
The o e all equency o he English phonological neighbo hood,
calcula ed as he sum o he indi idual equencies o all neighbo ing
wo ds wi hin he a ge wo d neighbo hood was based on wo d e-
quencies ob ained om he Clea pond (English) da abase (Ma ian e al.,
2012). English neighbo hood equency alues anged be ween 84 and
59,371 pe million.
3.6.2. Ge man neighbo hood equency
Each English a ge wo d had a minimum o 50 % Ge man neighbo s
in he bilingual phonological neighbo hood. The o e all equency o
he Ge man phonological neighbo hood o an English a ge wo d was
calcula ed as he sum o he indi idual equencies o all Ge man
neighbo s, based on he Clea pond da abase o Ge man. Neighbo hood
equencies anged be ween 15 and 44,648 pe million. A wide dis i-
bu ion o Ge man neighbo hood equencies was a c i e ion o English
a ge wo d selec ion.
The ollowing lexical cha ac e is ics we e conside ed o each a ge
wo d.
3.6.3. Leng h o wo ds
Monosyllabic wo ds wi h 2 o 4 segmen s se ed as s imuli. Wo d
leng h was de e mined by phone ically ansc ibing he a ge wo ds
(wi h ToPhone ics) and coun ing segmen leng h wi h he Excel unc ion
LEN().
3.6.4. English lexical equency a e
F equency a es o he a ge wo ds we e ob ained om he Clea -
pond da abase o English. All wo ds anged in he lowe equency
spec um o 3–3865 pe million. The e a e indica ions in p e ious
s udies ha neighbo hood e ec s a e ampli ied in low-densi y/ low-
equency a ge wo ds (And ews, 1989, 1992; Fo s e & Shen, 1996;
Lue , 2025a; Sea s e al., 1995), leading o be e de ec ion o po en ially
milde neighbo hood e ec s. In he p esen s udy, he a ge wo ds we e
ne e he highes - equency wo ds wi hin hei neighbo hoods. This
allowed be e es ing o he e ec o he neighbo s on a ge
ecogni ion.
3.6.5. Phono ac ic p obabili y
Biphone p obabili ies o he English a ge wo ds we e calcula ed
wi h he Phono ac ic P obabili y Calcula o (Vi e i ch & Luce, 2004).
Biphone p obabili y alues e lec he sum o all biphone p obabili ies
wi hin a gi en wo d. P obabili ies o a ge wo ds anged be ween
0.0001 and 0.0422.
3.6.6. P esence o cogna es
Being ypologically close, English and Ge man sha e many cogna e
wo d o ms. In he p esen da a, i was coded whe he a c oss-language
phonological neighbo hood con ained any simila wo d o ms wi h
simila meanings in mode n English and Ge man (i.e., excluding his-
o ical cogna es ha ha e become phonologically non- anspa en ).
Eigh a ge wo ds each had one Ge man cogna e in hei neighbo -
hood, in all cases ansla ion e ms wi h nea iden ical meanings (i.e.,
eas – Ge m. “Os ”, gues – Ge m. “Gas ”, loud – Ge m. “lau ”, mile –
Ge m. “Meile”, mou h – Ge m. “Maul”, ou – Ge m. “aus”, shi – Ge m.
“Schich ”, ube – Ge man “Tube”), including one pseudo neighbo : ield –
Ge m. “Feld”.
3.6.7. Phonological neighbo hood densi y
Wha is e e ed o as “deg ee” in phonological ne wo ks is he one-
segmen dis ance be ween phonological wo d o ms (“Le ensh ein dis-
ance”, see Le ensh ein, 1966), which is he basis o neighbo hood
c ea ion. Neighbo hood densi y calcula ions we e ob ained om he C1-
English ne wo k. Only a ge wo ds wi h spa se phonological neigh-
bo hoods o less han 10 neighbo s in English we e selec ed. The a ge
wo ds had be ween 2 and 9 English neighbo s. The a ge wo ds had
be ween 2 and 18 Ge man neighbo s ( he la e being qui e dense
neighbo hoods in he Ge man language).
3.6.8. English weigh ed deg ee
The ne wo k e m “weigh ed deg ee” e e s o he s eng h o a link
be ween wo nodes. In he p esen s udy, phonological simila i ies be-
ween a ge wo ds and hei neighbo s (including pseudo-neighbo s)
we e calcula ed wi h he ALINE algo i hm, compu ed wi h he “ali-
neR” package in R (Downey e al., 2008). In he p esen case, he al-
go i hm compa ed phonological ea u es o he one segmen ha
dis inguished he phonological neighbo s in English, including o
ins ance manne , place, aspi a ion, nasali y, and oundness (see Downey
E.M. Lue
Ac a Psychologica 261 (2025) 105863
6
e al., 2017, o de ails). The ALINE dis ance sco e anges be ween
0 (=pe ec ag eemen ) and 1 (=maximal phonological dis ance). I was
con e ed o a simila i y sco e by e e se sco ing and mul iplying he
alue by 100 (e.g., an ALINE sco e o 0.2 was con e ed o 80). This
esul ed in pe cen age-based phonological simila i y sco es ha lead o
mo e in ui i e link s eng hs in a ne wo k (see Table 3). English
weigh ed deg ee ep esen ed he a e age o all phonological simila i ies
be ween a a ge wo d and i s English neighbo s. I anged be ween 58
and 90.
3.6.9. Ge man weigh ed deg ee
ALINE sco es we e calcula ed be ween he English a ge wo ds and
hei Ge man phonological neighbo s (and pseudo-neighbo s), iden ical
o he compu a ions o English weigh ed deg ee. Ge man weigh ed de-
g ee ep esen ed he a e age o all phonological simila i ies be ween a
a ge wo d and i s Ge man neighbo s. I anged be ween 47 and 92.
Weigh ed deg ees and neighbo hood equencies in English showed
a subs an ial nega i e co ela ion ( = − 0.55), which may indica e ha
highe equency wo ds a e less phonologically simila o one ano he .
The ela ionship be ween Ge man neighbo hood equency and
weigh ed deg ee was less p onounced ( = − 0.32, English), which may
e lec he ac ha lexical equencies a es and phonological simila i y
a e less igh ly bound. Essen ially, hese co ela i e ela ionships may be
a i ac s o segmen al and phono ac ic equencies (and p obabili ies) in
he languages.
3.6.10. Clus e ing in he bilingual neighbo hood
The clus e ing coe icien (“”CC”) is a ne wo k s a is ic ha measu es
he deg ee o in e linking o neighbo s wi hin a neighbo hood (see
Fig. 4). I measu es how many neighbo s o a a ge wo d a e linked o
one ano he . CC is based on he o mula
CC =2en/(kn(kn–1) )
which ou pu s alues be ween 0 and 1, wi h he la e ep esen ing
comple e in e linking o all neighbo s (Wa s & S oga z, 1998). In his
s udy, only wo ds wi h an in e media e CC be ween 0.2 and 0.6 in he
bilingual Ge man-English neighbo hood we e chosen as a ge wo ds.
3.6.11. Ne wo k s a is ics
All a ge wo ds esided in he gian componen pa o he English-
Ge man phonological ne wo ks, which is he la ges clus e o in e -
connec ed nodes in a ne wo k (Siew & Vi e i ch, 2016). A “ne wo k
densi y” compound a iable was cons uc ed by a e aging he ollowing
i e (log- ans o med) bilingual ne wo k s a is ics: deg ee, weigh ed
deg ee, clus e ing coe icien , as well as eigen ec o cen ali y, and
closeness cen ali y. Eigen ec o cen ali y akes in o accoun he cen-
ali ies o neighbo ing nodes and assigns he highes alues o hose
wo ds ha ha e highly cen alized neighbo s (Bonacich, 2007).
Th ough his, wo ds wi h many neighbo s ha ha e hemsel es many
neighbo s can be iden i ied. Such a s uc u e is indica i e o he densi y
o a pa icula ne wo k a ea. Closeness cen ali y is a measu e o how
close each node is o all o he nodes in a ne wo k when measu ing he
sho es dis ance (Sala a i e al., 2019). I can be unde s ood as he in-
e se o he a e age dis ance om a gi en node o all o he nodes in a
ne wo k. High alues indica e ha a wo d is close o nume ous o he
wo ds in a ne wo k, which is indica i e o he densi y o he ne wo k
pa in which a wo d esides (Golds ein & Vi e i ch, 2017; Vi e i ch &
Golds ein, 2014). High alues in he agg ega e o he i e me ics indi-
ca e dense a eas in he o e all bilingual ne wo k.
Fig. 5 illus a es he ela ionship be ween he ne wo k s a is ics in a
pa ial English phonological ne wo k whe e he denses egion (indi-
ca ed wi h da ke nodes) can be iden i ied using he i e me ics ou -
lined abo e. The highes -deg ee wo d (i.e., he one wi h he mos
phonological neighbo s) is g ace, ollowed by g ea , g ape, g ade, g a e,
and g ay. These a e also he wo ds wi h he highes weigh ed deg ees.
The same wo ds a e also he ones wi h he highes CC in he ne wo k, as
hey a e all linked o one ano he in hei neighbo hoods. The neigh-
bo hood a ound g ape is also cha ac e ized by highes Eigen ec o
cen ali y, and many o i s membe s show he highes closeness cen-
ali y alues o he ne wo k (i.e., ace, g ace, ace). Con e sely, he
wo ds ial and ail a e cha ac e ized by lowe alues in deg ee,
weigh ed deg ee, CC, closeness and eigen ec o cen ali ies in he
ne wo k. A combina ion o hese ne wo k s a is ics can in o m abou he
densi y o a speci ic ne wo k egion whe e a a ge wo d is loca ed. All
a ge wo ds used in he lexical decision ask s emmed om pa s o he
phonological ne wo k ha a e cha ac e ized by in e media e densi y,
wi h loga i hmic alues o he compound densi y a iable anging be-
ween −0.13 and 0.37. Since his ange is b oad, he densi y a iable
was added as a con ol a iable o he s a is ical models.
3.7. S a is ical analysis
A e expe imen al da a collec ion, eac ion ime da a was cleaned
and so ed in a ious ways. Fi s , esponses below 200 ms we e
emo ed, as hey indica e non-p ocessing o he s imulus (Whelan,
2008). Reac ion imes pe pa icipan we e z-sco ed and alues
exceeding +3 o −3 we e conside ed ou lie s and emo ed. Ta ge
wo ds ha elici ed mo e han 30 % o judgmen e o s we e dele ed
om he da ase . This a ec ed wo wo ds, “owl” and “shou ”. In addi-
ion, one a ge wo d, ime, had o be emo ed as he audio ile u ned
ou o be co up ed. The o e all da a emo ed amoun ed o 5.6 % o he
aw da a. A o al o 47 wo ds emained and we e p ocessed o u he
analysis. One sp ead shee con aining all esponses (N =3161) was
compiled, in addi ion o one con aining only co ec esponses (N =
3058).
A gene alized linea mixed e ec s model (GLM) was un in R wi h
he package lme4 (Ba es e al., 2014) o see whe he he accu acy o
wo d judgmen s (as eal o non-wo ds) was in luenced by he equency
o he Ge man neighbo hood o a a ge wo d. As dependen a iable he
Table 3
Phonological simila i y sco es calcula ed wi h he ALINE algo i hm be ween he
wo d “a” and h ee o i s phonological neighbo s.
wo d phone ic neighbo phone ic alineR ou pu escaled alue
a eɪache eɪk 0.37 63
a eɪage eɪʤ 0.37 63
a eɪai eə0.17 83
Fig. 4. Clus e ing in he “mass” neighbo hood. The clus e ing coe icien o
0.52 indica es ha a high numbe o phonological neighbo s o “mass” a e
neighbo s o one ano he , as indica ed by he links.
E.M. Lue
Ac a Psychologica 261 (2025) 105863
7
bina y ou come “co ec /inco ec ” was en e ed. The ollowing ixed
e ec s we e included: an in e ac ion a iable o Ge man neighbo hood
equency and Ge man weigh ed deg ee as he a iable o in e es , in
addi ion o a numbe o con ol a iables, including English neighbo -
hood equency in e ac ed wi h English weigh ed deg ee, lexical e-
quency a es o a ge wo ds, p esence o c oss-language cogna e (yes/
no), and densi y o he ne wo k pa in which he a ge wo d esided.
No co ela ions be ween ixed e ec s we e de ec ed. Random e ec s o
a ge wo d and pa icipan ID we e speci ied, wi h andom slopes o
Ge man and English neighbo hood equencies, as well as o lexical
equency a es o he a ge wo ds. A binomial eg ession wi h “clo-
glog” links was speci ied in he GLM, as he da a con ained a la ge
numbe o co ec han inco ec esponses (only 3.3 % we e inco ec ).
No con e gence issues appea ed du ing he compu a ion.
As a nex s ep, a linea mixed e ec s model (LME) was compu ed o
in es iga e he in luence o Ge man neighbo hood equency on eac-
ion imes in milli-seconds o a ge wo ds. The LME model only
included co ec esponses o he pa icipan s. The LME was s uc u ed
in an iden ical way o he GLM. Fo he LME model, deg ees o eedom
and signi icance alues can be es ima ed ia app oxima ions, o which
he Sa e hwai e's me hod is commonly used. Func ions o i we e
u ilized in he R package lme Tes (Kuzne so a e al., 2017).
4. Resul s
As is ypically he case in lexical decision asks, esponses o non-
wo ds we e slowe han esponses o eal wo ds (a e age non-wo ds
=2.39 s., SD =1.54; a e age eal wo ds =1.75 s., SD =0.81), indica ing
as e p ocessing o eal wo ds.
4.1. Accu acy o wo d judgmen s
Table 4 summa izes he esul s o he gene alized linea mixed e ec s
model ha es ed whe he he e was any di e ence in lexical cha ac-
e is ics o wo ds ha we e accu a ely judged (e.g., eal wo ds being
judged as eal wo ds) o inco ec ly judged (e.g., a non-wo d judged as
being a eal wo d). The sample size o his accu acy model was 3161
esponses. Ge man neighbo s we e no shown o in luence accu acy o
wo d judgmen s (see Table 4). Resul s yielded only e ec s o a ge wo d
equency a e on he accu acy o he wo d judgmen s, whe e a signi -
icance o p =0.01 indica es ha he accu acy o wo d judgmen in-
c eases oge he wi h lexical equency a e o a ge wo ds (i.e., 0.36
highe log odds o accu a e judgmen , see es ima e in Table 4).
Co ec ly judged a ge wo ds (i.e., eal wo ds as eal wo ds) we e
gene ally cha ac e ized by highe lexical equency a es han hose
wo ds ha we e judged inco ec ly.
Fig. 5. A pa ial phonological ne wo k. The da ke a ea indica es he denses ne wo k egion in e ms o deg ee, weigh ed deg ee, clus e ing coe icien , closeness
cen ali y, and Eigen ec o cen ali y.
Table 4
Gene alized linea mixed e ec s model es ima es o ixed and andom e ec s. Judgmen accu acy model.
Va iable Va iance Es ima e SD SE z p
Random e ec s
Pa icipan
Ge man neighbo hood equency 9.264e-03 0.0962479
English neighbo hood equency 1.411e-02 0.1187986
Lexical equency a e 4.634e-01 0.6807021
Wo d
Ge man neighbo hood equency 1.333e-01 0.3651588
English neighbo hood equency 1.277e-02 0.1129883
Lexical equency a e 2.201e-05 0.0046910
Fixed e ec s
In e cep −19.36 20.37 −0.95 0.34
Ge man neighbo hood equency 3.24 4.55 0.71 0.48
Ge man weigh ed deg ee 1.93 7.65 0.25 0.8
English neighbo hood equency 2.54 4.46 0.57 0.57
English weigh ed deg ee 8.88 8.46 1.05 0.29
Ta ge lexical equency a e 0.36 0.15 2.45 0.014 *
Ne wo k densi y −0.65 0.75 −0.87 0.39
Cogna e p esence 0.26 0.19 1.41 0.16
Ge man neighbo h. F equ. & Ge man weigh ed deg ee (in e ac ion) −1.75 2.4 −0.73 0.47
English neighbo h. F equ. & English weigh ed deg ee (in e ac ion) −1.27 2.38 −0.53 0.59
*
p < 0.05.
E.M. Lue
Ac a Psychologica 261 (2025) 105863
8
4.2. Reac ion imes
Tes ing eac ion imes o a ge wo ds, he linea mixed e ec model
esul s a e p esen ed in Table 5. Inco ec esponses we e emo ed om
he sample, esul ing in a sample size o 3057 esponses o he eac ion
imes model. As indica ed in Table 5, eac ion imes we e in luenced by
Ge man neighbo hood equency, Ge man weigh ed deg ee, as well as
he in e ac ion be ween he wo. The absence o any e ec s o English
neighbo hood equency will be discussed below.
The in e ac ed a iable o Ge man neighbo hood equency and
Ge man weigh ed deg ee was associa ed wi h esponse la encies o
a ge wo ds. The posi i e es ima e indica es ha mo e equen and
phonologically simila Ge man neighbo s caused a delay in ecogni ion
o an English a ge wo ds. Inspec ing he in e ac ion mo e closely,
di e ences eme ge in e ms o he e ec o phonological simila i y and
equency (see Fig. 6).
Ge man weigh ed deg ee is he mode a ing a iable ha impac s he
ela ionship be ween eac ion imes and Ge man neighbo hood e-
quency. Neighbo hoods wi h phonological simila i y alues o one
s anda d de ia ion abo e he mean (i.e., +1 SD) show a s ong associ-
a ion be ween highe neighbo hood equency and longe esponse la-
encies. This means ha equen Ge man neighbo s led o longe
eac ion imes in cases whe e phonological simila i y was high.
Phonological simila i ies alues below he mean (i.e., −1 SD) show he
e e se e ec o sho e esponse la encies o a ge wo ds wi h highe
equency neighbo hoods, implying ha phonologically dissimila
Ge man neighbo s elici ed sho e esponse imes in high- equency
Ge man neighbo hoods. Hence, he obse ed c oss-language neighbo -
hood e ec was media ed by phonological simila i y o he c oss-
language neighbo s.
5. Discussion
5.1. Main indings
This s udy in es iga ed he e ec o neighbo hood equency in
bilingual phonological neighbo hoods o Ge man lea ne s o English as a
second language. Resul s demons a e ha highe lexical equencies o
c oss-language neighbo s (i.e., Ge man neighbo s o English a ge
wo ds), especially in connec ion wi h high phonological simila i y,
delay eac ion imes o English a ge wo ds. This inding unde sco es
he in luence o a i s language on a second, lea ned language and
p o ides e idence o a c oss-language equency e ec on he lexical
le el.
5.2. Implica ions
Suppo o an in eg a ed bilingual wo d o m lexicon, whe e ac i-
a ion sp eads ac oss languages, p ima ily s ems om neighbo hood
densi y in es iga ions, aking in o accoun he numbe o phonological
neighbo s a a ge wo d has (e.g., Blumen eld & Ma ian, 2007; Canseco-
Gonzalez e al., 2010; Ju & Luce, 2004; Lag ou e al., 2011; Lue , 2025a;
Ma ian & Spi ey, 2003; Shook & Ma ian, 2012; Webe & Cu le , 2004).
This s udy is he i s o epo on neighbo hood equency e ec s in a
c oss-linguis ic con ex . F equency e ec s seem o heigh en compe i ion
in neighbo hoods whe e wo d o ms om mul iple languages sha e
ac i a ion. Especially in la e bilingualism, whe e a dominan i s lan-
guage o en o e shadows a second language, he L1 wo d o ms exe
s ong in luence in a neighbo hood (Spi ey & Ma ian, 1990; Webe &
Cu le , 2004; Wen & an Heu en, 2017). I is likely ha i s language
lexical equencies a e mo e deeply en enched in speake s' men al
lexica and he e o e ha e a s onge impac han second language lexical
equencies (Diependaele e al., 2013). C oss-linguis ic equency e ec s
change he ajec o y o lexical ac i a ion sp eading, which leads o
di e en p edic ions ega ding wo d ecogni ion. This c ea es an
impe a i e o conside equency e ec s in s udies o he bilingual
lexicon, analogous o wha has been p oposed by Luce and Pisoni (1998)
o monolingual neighbo hoods.
P e ious esea ch has shown ha smalle ocabula ies ypically
exhibi la ge equency e ec s (B ysbae , Lag ou, & S e ens, 2017), a
inding o ele ance o second languages (Cop e al., 2015). Acco ding
o he lexical en enchmen hypo hesis, less exposu e o (and p o iciency
in) a language leads o mo e p onounced equency e ec s (B ysbae ,
Lag ou, & S e ens, 2017). A smalle numbe o wo ds being used
epea edly – as is commonly he case wi h second languages – leads o
deepe cogni i e embedding o hese wo ds and ampli ies equency
e ec s. I is no able ha no L2 neighbo hood e ec s we e obse ed in
he p esen s udy. The e a e wo explana ions ha seem likely in he
p esen case. Fo one, neighbo hood e ec s may be domina ed by he
i s language bu no he e ye o L2 neighbo hoods. In his con ex he
ques ion a ises how ad anced an L2 lea ne mus be o hose L2
neighbo hood e ec s o a ise. This s udy in ol ed L2 lea ne s a a qui e
ad anced p o iciency le el (CEFR-C1), so i would be expec ed ha
neighbo hood e ec s should play some ole in lexical p ocessing. In ac ,
L2 lea ne s a his p o iciency le el we e p e iously ound o show
neighbo hood densi y e ec s (Lue , 2025a). An al e na i e explana ion
o he absence o English neighbo hood e ec s could be he speci ic
limi a ions imposed on a ge wo d selec ion. S imuli we e chosen ha
Table 5
Linea mixed e ec s model es ima es o ixed and andom e ec s. Reac ion ime
model.
Va iable Va iance Es ima e SD SE p
Random e ec s
Pa icipan
Ge man
neighbo hood
equency
8.898e-07 0.0009433
English
neighbo hood
equency
3.669e-07 0.0006057
Lexical equency
a e
1.181e-06 0.0010868
Wo d
Ge man
neighbo hood
equency
2.343e-05 0.0048400
English
neighbo hood
equency
5.636e-05 0.0075072
Lexical equency
a e
1.929e-04 0.0138890
Fixed e ec s
In e cep 2.42 0.84 0.01 *
Ge man
neighbo hood
equency
−0.41 0.13 0.005 **
Ge man weigh ed
deg ee
−0.74 0.26 0.013*
English
neighbo hood
equency
−0.12 0.19 0.54
English weigh ed
deg ee
−0.42 0.38 0.29
Ta ge lexical
equency a e
−0.01 0.004 0.08
Ne wo k densi y −0.03 0.036 0.47
Cogna e p esence 0.005 0.01 0.47
Ge man neighbo h.
F equ. & Ge man
weigh ed deg ee
(in e ac ed)
0.22 0.07 0.0056 **
English neighbo h.
F equ. & English
weigh ed deg ee
(in e ac ed)
0.06 0.11 0.55
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.
E.M. Lue
Ac a Psychologica 261 (2025) 105863
9
Table A (con inued)
Ta ge Language Neighbo IPA T ansla ion Cogna e Pseudo wo ds/ IPA
mies mis lousy
es
ε
s i
Moos mos moss
mile English mail_male meɪl Pos , m¨
annlich
Meile may maɪk¨
onn e
migh maɪ k¨
onn e
ile aɪl Da ei
mine maɪn Mine
pile paɪl S apel
while waɪl w¨
ah end
smile smaɪl l¨
acheln
Ge man mal_Mahl mal imes, meal
Beil baɪl ha che
Keil kaɪl wedge
geil gaɪl cool, good
heil haɪl in ac , healed
Meile maɪləmile yes
Mais maɪs co n
Seil zaɪl ope
weil aɪl because
Teil aɪl pa
Maul maʊl mou h
min English minu e mɪnə Minu e
Minze mean m
ε
n gemein
mis mɪs Nebel
hin hɪn Hinweis
Ge man Mond mon moon
Mund mʊn mou h
Rind ʁɪn bee
Mis mɪs ga gabe
Wind ɪn wind
Kind kɪn child
mild mɪl mild
mi mɪ wi h
mou h English mouse maʊs Maus
Mund Sou h saʊθSüden
Ge man Maul maʊl mou h yes
Maue maʊɐ wall
Maus maʊs mouse
now English wow waʊwau
je z cow kaʊKuh
how haʊwie
no_know noʊnein, wissen
noun naʊn Nomen
Ge man Na na ool
nass nas we
nach nax a e
lau laʊlukewa m
Schau ʃaʊshow
au ʁaʊ ough
Tau aʊdew
Sau zaʊsow (pig)
Bau baʊcons uc ion, building
Au aʊmeadowland
Nah na seam
nah na nea
nahe nahənea
ough English all ɔl alles
soll e o ɔ aus
a æ bei
ea i essen
i ɪ es
caugh k
α
ge angen
hough θɔ Gedanke, gedach
Ge man Os ɔs Eas
O ɔɐ place
ob ɔp whe he
o ɔ o en
Go gɔ God
O e ɔ ɐo e
Po pɔ po
ou English hou _ou aʊə S unde, unse /e
aus, aus owl aʊl Eule
ou e aʊ ə ¨
auße e/
doub daʊ Zwei el
shou ʃaʊ Ru
(con inued on nex page)
E.M. Lue
Ac a Psychologica 261 (2025) 105863
16

Table A (con inued)
Ta ge Language Neighbo IPA T ansla ion Cogna e Pseudo wo ds/ IPA
pu pʊ se zen, s ellen, legen
ou e u S ecke
oo ʊ Fuß
Ge man Au sch aʊ ʃouch
auch aʊx also
ach ax eigh
As as b anch
Au aʊmeadowland
Aua aʊɐ ouch
au aʊ on
Hau haʊ skin
lau laʊ loud
Ab ab abbo
A a ype
Schu ʃʊ deb is
Eid aɪ oa h
Ak ak ac
al al old
Am am o ice
aus aʊ ou yes
Au o aʊ əca
owl English hou _ou aʊə S unde, unse /e
Eule ou aʊ aus, aus
owel aʊəl Hand uch
wool wʊl Wolle
owel aʊəl Vokal
pull pʊl ziehen
bull bʊl Bulle
oul aʊl Ve s oß
ull ʊl oll
Ge man Aal_all al eel, space
Aula aʊlɐaudi o ium
aul aʊl lazy
aus aʊs ou
auch aʊx also
Au aʊmeadowland
Aua aʊɐ ouch
au aʊ on
Gaul gaʊl ho se
Null nʊl ze o
Maul maʊl mou h
piece_peace English pea pi E bse
S ück, F ieden pu se pɜ s Geldbeu el
pass pæs Pass
niece nis Nich e
peel pil sch¨
alen
peek_peak pik gucken, Spi ze
Ge man ies is nas y
dies dis his
Spießʃpis pike
Pie piɐpie
Pieps pips beep
Piep pip beep
Pass pas pass
Kies kis g a el
mies mis lousy
pile English pine paɪn Kie e
S apel while waɪl w¨
ah end
pale peɪl blass
pipe paɪp Roh
pie paɪKuchen
mile maɪl Meile
ile aɪl Da ei
pill pɪl Pille
Ge man Seil zaɪl ope
P eil p aɪl a ow
Teil aɪl pa
weil aɪl because
Keil kaɪl wedge
geil gaɪl cool, good
heil haɪl in ac , healed
Beil baɪl ha che
shi English gi gɪ Geschenk
Schich li lɪ heben
Ge man Schi ʃɪ ship
Schich ʃɪx shi yes
(con inued on nex page)
E.M. Lue
Ac a Psychologica 261 (2025) 105863
17
Table A (con inued)
Ta ge Language Neighbo IPA T ansla ion Cogna e Pseudo wo ds/ IPA
Schild ʃɪl sign
Sch i ʃʁɪ w i ing
S i ʃ ɪ pen
Gi gɪ poison
Li lɪ ele a o
Schu ʃʊ illain
shoo English sui su Anzug
schießen shee ʃi Laken
oo u Wu zel
shi ʃɜ Hemd
sho ʃ
α
Schuss
shu ʃʌ geschlossen
shoe ʃu Schuh
Ge man Wu u ange
Schuh ʃu shoe
Hu hu ha
Schub ʃup h us
Schu ʃʊ deb is
gu gu good
Mu mu cou age
Shi ʃœɐ shi
shou English ou e aʊ S ecke
u en ou aʊ aus, aus
doub daʊ Zwei el
Ge man Schach ʃax sha
Schaum ʃaʊm oam
Schau ʃaʊshow
lau laʊ loud
Hau haʊ skin
Schu ʃʊ deb is
Schaue ʃaʊɐ showe
alk English oy ɔɪ Spielzeug
eden, sp echen ech
ε
k Technik
walk wɔk Spazie gang, gehen
Ge man Schock ʃɔk shock
S ock ʃ ɔk s ick
Tag ak day
oll ɔl g ea
Dock dɔk dock
Bock bɔk buck
Rock ʁɔk ski
ime English dime daɪm cen
Zei ie aɪbinden
y e aɪə Rei en
ide aɪd Gezei en
ype aɪp A
igh aɪ eng
Ge man heim haɪm home
Teich aɪx pond
Leim laɪm glue
Teil aɪl pa
Reim ʁaɪm hyme
Teig aɪk dough
Keim kaɪm ge m, seed
own English owel aʊəl Hand uch
S ad owe aʊə Tu m
noun naʊn Nomen
down daʊn un en
one oʊn Ton
Ge man Zaun saʊn ence
Tausch aʊʃ swap, ade
aub aʊp dea
au aʊdew
Faun aʊn aun
ube English o_ oo_ wo u zu, auch, zwei
R¨
oh e, Tube ool ul We kzeug
omb um G ab
oo h uθZahn
Ge man Tou uɐ ou
un un do
Tuba ubɐ uba
Tube ubəR¨
oh e, Tube yes
Pseudo neighbo s Soup (Engl.) sup Suppe
aub (Ge m.) aʊp dea
Tipp (Ge m.) ɪp ip
e English se s
ε
se zen
(con inued on nex page)
E.M. Lue
Ac a Psychologica 261 (2025) 105863
18
Table A (con inued)
Ta ge Language Neighbo IPA T ansla ion Cogna e Pseudo wo ds/ IPA
Tie a z deb d
ε
Schulden
Le l
ε
lassen
pe p
ε
Haus ie
ge g
ε
bekommen
ye j
ε
noch
we w
ε
nass
be b
ε
We e
ne n
ε
Ne z
Ge man weh e hu
e
ε
a
Wa a wa , mud la s
Be b
ε
bed
ne n
ε
nice
Wel
ε
l wo ld
wenn
ε
n i
we
ε
ɐ wo h
We e
ε
ɐwea he
Wu u ange
we _Weh
ε
ɐwho, de ense
zoo English do du un
Zoo sue su klagen
new nu neu
who hu we
you ju du
o_ oo_ wo u zu, auch, zwei
shoe ʃu Schuh
Ge man Ruh ʁu es
Kuh_Coup ku cow, coup
so zo so
Sie zi you, hey
See ze lake
Schuh ʃu shoe
du du you, hey
Appendix B. Supplemen a y da a
Supplemen a y da a o his a icle can be ound online a h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.ac psy.2025.105863.
Da a a ailabili y
I ha e included he da a as supplemen a y ma e ial
Re e ences
Amengual, M. (2016). The pe cep ion o language-speci ic phone ic ca ego ies does no
gua an ee accu a e phonological ep esen a ions in he lexicon o ea ly bilinguals.
Applied PsychoLinguis ics, 37(5), 1221–1251. h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/
S0142716415000557
And ews, S. (1989). F equency and neighbo hood e ec s on lexical access: Ac i a ion o
sea ch? Jou nal o Expe imen al Psychology: Lea ning, Memo y, and Cogni ion, 15(5),
802–814. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/0278-7393.15.5.802
And ews, S. (1992). F equency and neighbo hood e ec s on lexical access: Lexical
simila i y o o hog aphic edundancy? Jou nal o Expe imen al Psychology: Lea ning,
Memo y, and Cogni ion, 18(2), 234–254. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/0278-
7393.18.2.234
Bas ian, M., Heymann, S., & Jacomy, M. (2009). Gephi: An open sou ce so wa e o
explo ing and manipula ing ne wo ks (associa ion o he ad ancemen o a i icial
in elligence, ed.).
Ba es, D., Maechle , M., Bolke , B., & Walke , S. (2014). {lme4}: Linea mixed-e ec s
models using Eigen and S4. R Package Ve sion, 1, 1–7.
Baus, C., Cos a, A., & Ca ei as, M. (2008). Neighbou hood densi y and equency e ec s
in speech p oduc ion: A case o in e ac i i y. Language & Cogni i e P ocesses, 23(6),
866–888. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/01690960801962372
Belke, E., B ysbae , M., Meye , A. S., & Ghyselinck, M. (2005). Age o acquisi ion e ec s
in pic u e naming: E idence o a lexical-seman ic compe i ion hypo hesis. Cogni ion,
96(2), B45–B54. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.cogni ion.2004.11.006
Blumen eld, H. K., & Ma ian, V. (2007). Cons ain s on pa allel ac i a ion in bilingual
spoken language p ocessing: Examining p o iciency and lexical s a us using eye-
acking. Language & Cogni i e P ocesses, 22(5), 633–660. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/
01690960601000746
Bohn, O. S., & Flege, J. E. (1992). The p oduc ion o new and simila owels by adul
Ge man lea ne s o English. S udies in Second Language Acquisi ion, 14, 131–158.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0272263100010792
Bonacich, P. (2007). Some unique p ope ies o eigen ec o cen ali y. Social Ne wo ks,
29(4), 555–564. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.socne .2007.04.002
Bo owsky, R., & Masson, M. E. (1999). F equency e ec s and lexical access: On he
in e p e a ion o null pseudohomophone base-wo d equency e ec s. Jou nal o
Expe imen al Psychology: Human Pe cep ion and Pe o mance, 25(1), 270. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1037/0096-1523.25.1.270
de Bo , K., & Ba yi, S. (2022). Bilingual models o speaking. Rou ledge.
B yla, B. (2015). O acle da abase 12c handbook: Manage a scalable, secu e O acle en e p ise
da abase en i onmen . McG aw Hill.
B ysbae , M., & Biemille , A. (2016). Tes -based age-o -acquisi ion no ms o 44
housand English wo d meanings. Beha io Resea ch Me hods, 49, 1520–1523.
h ps://doi.o g/10.3758/s13428-016-0811-4
B ysbae , M., Buchmeie , M., Con ad, M., Jacobs, A. M., Boel e, J., & Boehl, A. (2011).
The wo d equency e ec : A e iew o ecen de elopmen s and implica ions o he
oice o equency es ima es in Ge man. Expe imen al Psychology, 58(5), 412.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1027/1618-3169/a000123
B ysbae , M., Keulee s, E., & Mande a, P. (2019). Recogni ion imes o 54 housand
Du ch wo ds: Da a om he Du ch c owdsou cing p ojec . Psychologica Belgica, 59
(1), 281–300. h ps://doi.o g/10.5334/pb.491
B ysbae , M., Lag ou, E., & S e ens, M. (2017). Visual wo d ecogni ion in a second
language: A es o he lexical en enchmen hypo hesis wi h lexical decision imes.
Bilingualism: Language and Cogni ion, 20(3), 530–548. h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/
S1366728916000353
B ysbae , M., Mande a, P., & Keulee s, E. (2017). The wo d equency e ec in wo d
p ocessing: An upda ed e iew. Cu en Di ec ions in Psychological Science, 27(1),
45–50. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/0963721417727521
B ysbae , M., & New, B. (2009). Mo ing beyond Kuˇ
ce a and F ancis: A c i ical
e alua ion o cu en wo d equency no ms and he in oduc ion o a new and
imp o ed wo d equency measu e o Ame ican English. Beha io Resea ch Me hods,
41, 977–990. h ps://doi.o g/10.3758/BRM.41.4.977
Canseco-Gonzalez, E., B ehm, L., B ick, C. A., B own-Schmid , S., Fische , K., &
Wagne , K. (2010). Ca pe o ca cel: The e ec o age o acquisi ion and language
mode on bilingual lexical access. Language & Cogni i e P ocesses, 25(5), 669–705.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/01690960903474912
Capel, A. (2015). The English ocabula y p o ile. In J. Ha ison, & F. Ba ke (Eds.),
English p o ile s udies: English p o ile in p ac ice (pp. 9–27). Camb idge Uni e si y
P ess.
E.M. Lue
Ac a Psychologica 261 (2025) 105863
19
Ce e a-C espo, T., & Gonzalez-Al a ez, J. (2019). Speech pe cep ion: Phonological
neighbo hood e ec s on wo d ecogni ion pe sis despi e seman ic sen ence con ex .
Pe cep ual and Mo o Skills, 126(6), 1047–1057. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/
0031512519870032
Chan, K. Y., & Vi e i ch, M. S. (2009). The in luence o he phonological neighbo hood
clus e ing coe icien on spoken wo d ecogni ion. Jou nal o Expe imen al
Psychology: Human Pe cep ion and Pe o mance, 35(6), 1934–1949. h ps://doi.o g/
10.1037/a0016902
Chen, Q., & Mi man, D. (2012). Compe i ion and coope a ion among simila
ep esen a ions: Towa d a uni ied accoun o acili a i e and inhibi o y e ec s o
lexical neighbo s. Psychological Re iew, 119(2), 417–430. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/
a0027175
Che n, J., Cas o, N., & Siew, C. S. Q. (2025). E idence o communi y s uc u e in
phonological ne wo ks o a ious languages. Canadian Jou nal o Expe imen al
Psychology, 79(1), 4–14. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/cep0000357
Col hea , M., Ras le, K., Pe y, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegle , J. (2001). A dual ou e
cascaded model o isual wo d ecogni ion and eading aloud. Psychological Re iew,
108, 204–256. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/0033-295x.108.1.204
Cop, U., Keulee s, E., D ieghe, D., & Duyck, W. (2015). F equency e ec s in monolingual
and bilingual na u al eading. Psychonomic Bulle in & Re iew, 22(5), 1216–1234.
h ps://doi.o g/10.3758/s13423-015-0819-2
Council o Eu ope. (2018). Common Eu opean amewo k o e e ence o languages:
Lea ning, eaching, assessmen . (Companion olume wi h new desc ip o s).
Csa di, G., & Nepusz, T. (2006). The ig aph so wa e package o complex ne wo k
esea ch. In e Jou nal: Complex Sys ems, 1–9, 1695.
Da cy, I., Daidone, D., & Kojima, C. (2013). Asymme ic lexical access and uzzy lexical
ep esen a ions in second language lea ne s. The Men al Lexicon, 8(3), 372–420.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1075/ml.8.3.06da
Dell, G. S. (1986). A sp eading-ac i a ion heo y o e ie al in sen ence p oduc ion.
Psychologial Re iew, 93(3), 283–321. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.283
Diependaele, K., Lemhoe e , K., & B ysbae , M. (2013). The wo d equency e ec in
i s - and second-language wo d ecogni ion: A lexical en enchmen accoun .
Qua e ly Jou nal o Expe imen al Psychology, 66(5), 843–863. h ps://doi.o g/
10.1080/17470218.2012.720994
Dijks a, T., Miwa, K., B ummelhuis, B., Sappelli, M., & Baayen, R. H. (2010). How c oss-
language simila i y and ask demands a ec cogna e ecogni ion. Jou nal o Memo y
and Language, 62, 284–301. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.jml.2009.12.003
Di ks, D. D., Takayanagi, S., & Mosh egh, A. (2001). E ec s o lexical ac o s on wo d
ecogni ion among no mal-hea ing and hea ing-impai ed lis ene s. Jou nal o he
Ame ican Academy o Audiology, 12(5), 233–244.
Downey, S., Hallma k, B., Cox, M. P., No ques , P., & Lansing, J. S. (2008).
Compu a ional ea u e-sensi i e econs uc ion o language ela ionships:
De eloping he ALINE dis ance o compa a i e his o ical linguis ic econs uc ion.
Jou nal o Quan i a i e Linguis ics, 15(4), 340–369. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/
09296170802326681
Downey, S., Sun, G., & No ques , P. (2017). AlineR: An R package o op imizing ea u e-
weigh ed alignmen s and linguis ic dis ances. The R Jou nal, 9(1), 138–152.
Du ou , S., & F auen elde , U. H. (2010). Phonological neighbou hood e ec s in F ench
spoken-wo d ecogni ion. Qua e ly Jou nal o Expe imen al Psychology, 63(2),
226–238. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/17470210903308336
Ellis, A. W., & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2000). Age o acquisi ion e ec s in adul lexical
p ocessing e lec loss o plas ici y in ma u ing sys ems: Insigh s om connec ionis
ne wo ks. Jou nal o Expe imen al Psychology: Lea ning, Memo y, and Cogni ion, 26(5),
1103–1123. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037//0278-7393.26.5.1103
Ellis, N. C. (2002). F equency e ec s in language p ocessing: A e iew wi h implica ions
o heo ies o implici and explici language acquisi ion. S udies in Second Language
Acquisi ion, 24, 143–188. h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0272263102002024
Elshe i , M. M., P eece, E., & Ca ling, J. C. (2023). Age-o -acquisi ion e ec s: A li e a u e
e iew. Jou nal o Expe imen al Psychology: Lea ning, Memo y, and Cogni ion, 49(5),
812–847. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/xlm0001215
Fe and, L., New, B., B ysbae , M., & Keulee s, E. (2010). The F ench lexicon p ojec :
Lexical decision da a o 38,840 F ench wo ds and 38,840 pseudowo ds. Beha io
Resea ch Me hods, 42(2), 488–496. h ps://doi.o g/10.3758/BRM.42.2.488
Fo s e , K. I., & Shen, D. (1996). No enemies in he neighbo hood: Absence o inhibi o y
neighbo hood e ec s in lexical decision and seman ic ca ego iza ion. Jou nal o
Expe imen al Psychology: Lea ning, Memo y, and Cogni ion, 22(3), 696–713. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1037//0278-7393.22.3.696
F ances, C., Na a a-Ba indelli, E., & Ma in, C. D. (2021). Inhibi o y and acili a o y
e ec s o phonological and o hog aphic simila i y on L2 wo d ecogni ion ac oss
modali ies in bilinguals. Scien i ic Repo s, 11. h ps://doi.o g/10.1038/s41598-021-
92259-z
F auen elde , U. H., Baayen, R. H., Hellwis, F. M., & Sch eude , R. (1993). Neighbo hood
densi y and equency ac oss languages and modali ies. Jou nal o Memo y and
Language, 32, 781–804. h ps://doi.o g/10.1006/jmla.1993.1039
Gahl, S., & S and, J. F. (2016). Many neighbo hoods: Phonological and pe cep ual
neighbo hood densi y in lexical p oduc ion and pe cep ion. Jou nal o Memo y and
Language, 89, 162–178. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.jml.2015.12.006
Goldinge , S. D., Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1989). P iming lexical neighbo s o spoken
wo ds: E ec s o compe i ion and inhibi ion. Jou nal o Memo y and Language, 28(5),
501–518. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90009-0
Goldinge , S. D., Pisoni, D., & Logan, J. S. (1991). On he na u e o alke a iabili y
e ec s on ecall o spoken wo d lis s. Jou nal o Expe imen al Psychology: Lea ning,
Memo y, and Cogni ion, 17(1), 152–162. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037//0278-
7393.17.1.152
Golds ein, R., & Vi e i ch, M. (2017). The in luence o closeness cen ali y on lexical
p ocessing. F on ie s in Psychology, 8, A icle 1683. h ps://doi.o g/10.3389/
psyg.2017.01683
G ´
a , T. (2017). The s o y o he lea ne co pus LINDSEI_CZ. S udies in Applied Linguis ics,
8(2), 22–35.
Hameau, S., Biede mann, B., & Nickels, L. (2021). Lexical ac i a ion in la e bilinguals:
E ec s o phonological neighbou hood on spoken wo d p oduc ion. Language,
Cogni ion and Neu oscience, 36(4), 517–534. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/
23273798.2020.1863438
Hickey, R. (2019). Pe sis en ea u es in he English o Ge man speake s. In R. Hickey
(Ed.), English in he Ge man-speaking wo ld. Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Ju, M., & Luce, P. (2004). Falling on sensi i e ea s: Cons ain s on bilingual lexical
ac i a ion. Psychological Science, 15(5), 314–318. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/j.0956-
7976.2004.00675.x
Kapa sinski, V. (2006). Sound simila i y ela ions in he men al lexicon: Modeling he
lexicon as a complex ne wo k. Speech Resea ch Lab P og ess Repo , 27, 133–152.
Ka imi, H., & Diaz, M. (2020). When phonological neighbo hood densi y bo h acili a es
and impedes: Age o acquisi ion and name ag eemen in e ac wi h phonological
neighbo hood du ing wo d p oduc ion. Memo y & Cogni ion, 48, 1061–1072.
h ps://doi.o g/10.3758/s13421-020-01042-4
K oll, J. F., & Ma, F. (2017). The bilingual lexicon. In E. M. Fe nandez, & H. Smi h Cai ns
(Eds.), The handbook o psycholinguis ics (pp. 294–319). Wiley.
Kuzne so a, A., B ockho , P. B., & Ch is ensen, R. H. (2017). Lme Tes package: Tes s in
linea mixed e ec s models. Jou nal o S a is ical So wa e, 82(3), 1–26. h ps://doi.
o g/10.18637/jss. 082.i13
Lag ou, E., Ha suike , R. J., & Duyck, W. (2011). Knowledge o a second language
in luences audi o y wo d ecogni ion in he na i e language. Jou nal o Expe imen al
Psychology: Lea ning, Memo y, and Cogni ion, 37(4), 952–965. h ps://doi.o g/
10.1037/a0023217
Landaue , T. K., & S ee e , L. A. (1973). S uc u al di e ences be ween common and
a e wo ds: Failu e o equi alence assump ions o heo ies o wo d ecogni ion.
Jou nal o Ve bal Lea ning and Ve bal Beha io , 12, 119–131. h ps://doi.o g/
10.1016/S0022-5371(73)80001-5
Lemh¨
o e , K., Dijks a, T., Sch ie e s, H., Baayen, R. H., G ainge , J., & Zwi se lood, P.
(2008). Na i e language in luences on wo d ecogni ion in a second language: A
megas udy. Jou nal o Expe imen al Psychology: Lea ning, Memo y, and Cogni ion, 34
(1), 12–31. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.12
Leung, C. C., & Chau, H. F. (2007). Weigh ed asso a i e and disasso a i e ne wo ks
model. Physica A: S a is ical Mechanics and i s Applica ions, 378(2), 591–602. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1016/j.physa.2006.12.022
Le ensh ein, V. I. (1966). Bina y codes capable o co ec ing dele ions, inse ions, and
e e sals. So ie Physics Doklady, 10, 707–710.
Lewy, N., & G osjean, F. (2008). The Lewy and G osjean BIMOLA model. In F. G osjean
(Ed.), S udying bilinguals (pp. 201–210). Ox o d Uni e si y P ess. h ps://doi.o g/
10.1093/oso/9780199281282.003.0011.
Llompa , M. (2021). Phone ic ca ego iza ion abili y and ocabula y size con ibu e o
he encoding o di icul second-language phonological con as s in o he lexicon.
Bilingualism: Language and Cogni ion, 24(3), 481–496. h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/
S1366728920000656
Llompa , M., & Reinisch, E. (2020). The phonological o m o lexical i ems modula es
he encoding o challenging second-language sound con as s. Jou nal o
Expe imen al Psychology: Lea ning, Memo y, and Cogni ion, 46(8), 1590–1610. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1037/xlm0000832
Luce, P., Goldinge , S., Aue , E. T., & Vi e i ch, M. S. (2000). Phone ic p iming,
neighbo hood ac i a ion, and PARSYN. Pe cep ion & Psychophysics, 62(3), 615–625.
h ps://doi.o g/10.3758/BF03212113
Luce, P., & La ge, N. R. (2001). Phono ac ics, densi y, and en opy in spoken wo d
ecogni ion. Language And Cogni i e P ocesses, 16, 565–581. h ps://doi.o g/
10.1080/01690960143000137
Luce, P., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Recognizing spoken wo ds: The neighbo hood ac i a ion
model. Ea and Hea ing, 19(1), 1–36. h ps://doi.o g/10.1097/00003446-
199802000-00001
Lue , E. M. (2023). Obsolescence e ec s in second language phonological ne wo ks.
Memo y & Cogni ion, 52(4), 771–792. h ps://doi.o g/10.3758/s13421-023-01500-9
Lue , E. M. (2025a). Modeling he bilingual lexicon as a mul iplex phonological ne wo k.
Canadian Jou nal o Expe imen al Psychology, 79(1), 41–60. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/
cep0000351
Lue , E. M. (2025b). Empi ical models o phonological ne wo ks and hei g ow h in English.
Ka olinum P ess.
Ma ian, V., Ba olo i, J., Chabal, S., & Shook, A. (2012). CLEARPOND: C oss-linguis ic
easy access esou ce o phonological and o hog aphic neighbo hood densi ies.
PLoS One, 7(8), A icle e43230. h ps://doi.o g/10.1371/jou nal.pone.0043230
Ma ian, V., Blumen eld, H. K., & Bouk ina, O. V. (2008). Sensi i i y o phonological
simila i y wi hin and ac oss languages. Jou nal o Psycholinguis ic Resea ch, 37(3),
141–170. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10936-007-9064-9
Ma ian, V., & Spi ey, M. (2003). Compe ing ac i a ion in bilingual language p ocessing:
Wi hin- and be ween-language compe i ion. Bilingualism: Language and Cogni ion, 6,
97–115. h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S1366728903001068
Mi man, D. (2011). E ec s o nea and dis an seman ic neighbo s on wo d p oduc ion.
Cogni i e, A ec i e, & Beha io al Neu oscience, 11, 32–43. h ps://doi.o g/10.3758/
s13415-010-0009-7
Mi man, D., & Ki edge, A. K. (2010). E ec s o nea and dis an phonological neighbo s
on pic u e naming. P oceedings o he Annual Mee ing o he Cogni i e Science Socie y,
32, 1447–1452.
Mi man, D., & Magnuson, J. S. (2008). A ac o dynamics and seman ic neighbo hood
densi y: P ocessing is slowed by nea neighbo s and speeded by dis an neighbo s.
E.M. Lue
Ac a Psychologica 261 (2025) 105863
20
Jou nal o Expe imen al Psychology: Lea ning, Memo y, and Cogni ion, 34(1), 65–79.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.65
Newman, R. S., & Ge man, D. J. (2002). E ec s o lexical ac o s on lexical access among
ypical language-lea ning child en and child en wi h wo d- inding di icul ies.
Language and Speech, 43, 285–317. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/
00238309020450030401
Pei ce, J. W., G ay, J. R., Simpson, S., MacAskill, M. R., H¨
ochenbe ge , R., Sogo, H., …
Lindelø , J. (2019). PsychoPy2: Expe imen s in beha io made easy. Beha io
Resea ch Me hods, 51, 195–203. h ps://doi.o g/10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y
Pisoni, D. B., Nusbaum, H. C., Luce, P. A., & Slowiaczek, L. M. (1985). Speech pe cep ion,
wo d ecogni ion and he s uc u e o he lexicon. Speech Communica ion, 4(1),
75–95. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/0167-6393(85)90037-8
Rocca, B., Llompa , M., & Da cy, I. (2025). Phonological neighbo hood densi y,
phone ic ca ego iza ion, and ocabula y size di e en ially a ec he phonolexical
encoding o easy and di icul L2 segmen al con as s. Bilingualism: Language and
Cogni ion, 28(3), 662–675. h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S1366728924000865
Roedige , H. L., & McDe mo , K. B. (1995). C ea ing alse memo ies: Remembe ing
wo ds no p esen ed in lis s. Jou nal o Expe imen al Psychology: Lea ning, Memo y,
and Cogni ion, 21(4), 803–814. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/0278-7393.21.4.803
Rooden ys, S., Hulme, C., Le hb idge, A., Hin on, M., & Nimmo, L. M. (2002). Wo d-
equency and phonological-neighbo hood e ec s on e bal sho - e m memo y.
Jou nal o Expe imen al Psychology: Lea ning, Memo y, and Cogni ion, 28(6),
1019–1034. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037//0278-7393.28.6.1019
Sala a i, C., Abdollahpou i, A., & Manba i, Z. (2019). Ranking nodes in complex
ne wo ks based on local s uc u e and imp o ing closeness cen ali y.
Neu ocompu ing, 336, 36–45. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.neucom.2018.04.086
Schulpen, B., Dijks a, T., Sch ie e s, H., & Haspe , M. (2003). Recogni ion o in e lingual
homophones in bilingual audi o y wo d ecogni ion. Jou nal o Expe imen al
Psychology: Human Pe cep ion and Pe o mance, 29(6), 1155–1178. h ps://doi.o g/
10.1037/0096-1523.29.6.1155
Schwa z, A. I., & K oll, J. F. (2007). Language p ocessing in bilingual speake s. In
M. J. T axle , & M. A. Ge nsbache (Eds.), Hanbook o psycholinguis ics (pp. 963–995).
Else ie . h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/B978-012369374-7/50026-2.
Sea s, C. R., Campbell, C. R., & Lupke , S. J. (2006). Is he e a neighbo hood equency
e ec in English? E idence om eading and lexical decision. Jou nal o Expe imen al
Psychology: Human Pe cep ion and Pe o mance, 32(4), 1040–1062. h ps://doi.o g/
10.1037/0096-1523.32.4.1040
Sea s, C. R., Hino, Y., & Lupke , S. J. (1995). Neighbo hood size and neighbo hood
equency e ec s in wo d ecogni ion. Jou nal o Expe imen al Psychology: Human
Pe cep ion and Pe o mance, 21(4), 876–900. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/0096-
1523.21.4.876
Shook, A., & Ma ian, V. (2012). Bimodal bilinguals co-ac i a e bo h languages du ing
spoken comp ehension. Cogni ion, 124(3), 314–324. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.
cogni ion.2012.05.014
Shook, A., & Ma ian, V. (2013). The bilingual language in e ac ion ne wo k o
comp ehension o speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cogni ion, 16(2). h ps://doi.
o g/10.1017/S136672891200046
Siemund, P. (2023). Mul ilingual de elopmen : English in a global con ex . Camb idge
Uni e si y P ess.
Siew, C. S. Q. (2013). Communi y s uc u e in he phonological ne wo k. F on ie s in
Psychology, 4, 553. h ps://doi.o g/10.3389/ psyg.2013.00553
Siew, C. S. Q., & Cas o, N. (2023). Phonological simila i y judgmen s o wo d pai s
e lec sensi i i y o la ge-scale s uc u e o he phonological lexicon. Jou nal o
Expe imen al Psychology: Lea ning, Memo y, and Cogni ion, 49(12), 1989–2002.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/xlm0001271
Siew, C. S. Q., & Vi e i ch, M. S. (2016). Spoken wo d ecogni ion and se ial ecall o
wo ds om componen s in he phonological ne wo k. Jou nal o Expe imen al
Psychology: Lea ning, Memo y, and Cogni ion, 42(3), 394–410. h ps://doi.o g/
10.1037/xlm0000139
Somme s, M. S., & Lewis, B. P. (1999). Who eally li es nex doo : C ea ing alse
memo ies wi h phonological neighbo s. Jou nal o Memo y and Language, 40(1),
83–108. h ps://doi.o g/10.1006/jmla.1998.2614
Spi ey, M., & Ma ian, V. (1990). C oss- alk be ween na i e and second languages: Pa ial
ac i a ion o an i ele an lexicon. Psychological Science, 10, 281–284. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1111/1467-9280.00151
S o kel, H. L., A mb us e , J., & Hogan, T. P. (2006). Di e en ia ing phono a ic
p obabili y and neighbo hood densi y in adul wo d lea ning. Jou nal o Speech,
Language, and Hea ing Resea ch, 49, 1175–1192. h ps://doi.o g/10.1044/1092-
4388(2006/085)
Tucke , B. V., B enne , D., Danielson, D. K., Kelley, M. C., Nenadic, F., & Sims, M. (2019).
The massi e audi o y lexical deci ion (MALD) da abase. Beha io Resea ch Me hods,
51, 1187–1204. h ps://doi.o g/10.3758/s13428-018-1056-1
Vi e i ch, M. (1997). The Neighbo hood Cha ac e is ics o Malap opisms. Language and
Speech, 40, 211–228. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/002383099704000301
Vi e i ch, M. (2007). The sp ead o he phonological neighbo hood in luences spoken
wo d ecogni ion. Memo y & Cogni ion, 35, 166–175. h ps://doi.o g/10.3758/
b 03195952
Vi e i ch, M., & Cas o, N. (2015). Using ne wo k science in he language sciences and
clinic. In e na ional Jou nal o Speech-Language Pa hology, 17, 13–25. h ps://doi.o g/
10.3109/17549507.2014.987819
Vi e i ch, M., & Golds ein, R. (2014). Keywo ds in he men al lexicon. Jou nal o Memo y
and Language, 73, 131–147. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.jml.2014.03.005
Vi e i ch, M., & Luce, P. (1998). When wo ds compe e: Le els o p ocessing in pe cep ion
o spoken wo ds. Psychological Science, 9, 325–329. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/1467-
9280.00064
Vi e i ch, M., & Luce, P. (1999). P obabilis ic phono ac ics and neighbo hood ac i a ion
in spoken wo d ecogni ion. Jou nal o Memo y and Language, 40, 374–408. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1006/jmla.1998.2618
Vi e i ch, M., & Luce, P. (2004). A web-based in e ace o calcula e phono ac ic
p obabili y o wo ds and nonwo ds in English. Beha io Resea ch Me hods,
Ins umen s, & Compu e s, 36, 481–487. h ps://doi.o g/10.3758/b 03195594
Vi e i ch, M., & Luce, P. (2016). Phonological neighbo hood e ec s in spoken wo d
pe cep ion and p oduc ion. Annual Re iew o Linguis ics, 2, 75–94. h ps://doi.o g/
10.1146/annu e -linguis ics-030514-124832
Vi e i ch, M., Siew, C. S. Q., & Cas o, N. (2018). Spoken wo d ecogni ion. In S.-
A. Rueschemeye , & M. G. Gaskell (Eds.), The Ox o d handbook o psycholinguis ics
(pp. 31–47). Ox o d Uni e si y p ess. h ps://doi.o g/10.1093/ox o dhb/
9780198786825.013.2.
Vi e i ch, M., & Somme s, M. (2003). The acili a i e in luence o phonological simila i y
and neighbo hood equency in speech p oduc ion. Memo y & Cogni ion, 31,
491–504. h ps://doi.o g/10.3758/BF03196091
Wagenmake s, E. J., Ra cli , R., Gomez, P., & McKoon, G. (2008). A di usion model
accoun o c i e ion shi s in he lexical decision ask. Jou nal o Memo y and
Language, 58(1), 140–159. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.jml.2007.04.006
Wa s, D. J., & S oga z, S. H. (1998). Collec i e dynamics o ‘small-wo ld’ ne wo ks.
Na u e, 393, 440. h ps://doi.o g/10.1038/30918
Webe , A., & Cu le , A. (2004). Lexical compe i ion in non-na i e spoken-wo d
ecogni ion. Jou nal o Memo y and Language, 50(1), 1–25. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/
S0749-596X(03)00105-0
Wen, Y., & an Heu en, W. J. B. (2017). Non-cogna e ansla ion p iming in masked
p iming lexical decision expe imen s: A me a-analysis. Psychonomic Bulle in &
Re iew, 24(3), 879–886. h ps://doi.o g/10.3758/s13423-016-1151-1
Whelan, R. (2008). E ec i e analysis o eac ion ime da a. Psychological Re iew, 58,
475–482. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/BF03395630
Ya es, M. (2013). How he clus e ing o phonological neighbo s a ec s isual wo d
ecogni ion. Jou nal o Expe imen al Psychology: Lea ning, Memo y, and Cogni ion, 39
(5), 1649–1656. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/a0032422
Ya es, M., & Dickinson, D. (2023). How simila i y in luences wo d ecogni ion. In
J. Guendouzi, F. Loncke, & M. J. Williams (Eds.), The Rou ledge in e na ional
handbook o psycholinguis ic and cogni i e p ocesses (pp. 273–290). Rou ledge.
Ziegle , J. C., Muneaux, M., & G ainge , J. (2003). Neighbo hood e ec s in audi o y
wo d ecogni ion: Phonological compe i ion and o hog aphic acili a ion. Jou nal o
Memo y and Language, 48, 779–793. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)
00006-8
E.M. Lue
Ac a Psychologica 261 (2025) 105863
21