Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: Appl Psycholinguist. 2015 Apr 13;37(2):411–434. doi: 10.1017/S0142716415000053

Table 2.

Characteristics of target nonwords.

Homophone pairs (second syllable) Transcription High density spelling Low density spelling Number of phonological neighbors Number of orthographic neighbors for high density spelling Number of orthographic neighbors for low density spelling positional segment frequency Biphone probability of medial consonants
“strait/straight” /fispet/ “feespait” “feespaight” 34 15 1 0.1796 .0081
“peek/pique” /mʌnfik/ “munfeek” “munfique” 20 6 1 0.1318 .0022
“ate/eight” /bɑɪ nvet/ “binevate” “bineveight” 19 12 1 0.1176 .0113
“loot/lute” /pʌlvut/ “pulvoot” “pulvute” 26 18 9 0.1305 .0015
“cash/cache” /fʌlvæʃ/ “fulvash” “fulvache” 15 12 2 0.1096 .0015
“side/sighed” /bispɑ ɪd/ “beespide” “beespighed” 5 13 0 0.1566 .0081