Table 1.
Summary of results of studies investigating effects of phonotactic probability and neighborhood density on word-learning configuration.
| Word type |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study | No. of exposures |
Referent characteristics |
High probability– high density |
High probability– low density |
Low probability– high density |
Low probability– low density |
| Referent Identification | ||||||
| Preschoolers with TD | ||||||
| Storkel (2001) | 7 | Familiar objects (pictures) |
✔ | — | — | |
| Storkel & Lee (2011) Experiment 1 |
12–72 | Black line drawings of nonobjects |
— | — | ✔ | |
| Storkel & Lee (2011) Experiment 2, |
12–72 | Black line drawings of nonobjects |
✔a | — | — | |
| Preschoolers with TD and with SLI | ||||||
| Gray & Brinkley (2011) | 105 | Unfamiliar or familiar objects |
— | — | ✔ | |
| Gray, Brinkley, & Svetina (2012) | 132 | Unfamiliar or familiar objects |
— | = | — | = |
| School-age children with TD | ||||||
| Storkel & Rogers (2000) | 5 | Familiar objects (pictures) |
✔b | — | — | |
| Form Identification | ||||||
| Preschoolers with TD | ||||||
| Storkel (2001) | 7 | Familiar objects (pictures) |
✔ | — | — | |
| Naming | ||||||
| Preschoolers with TD | ||||||
| Storkel (2001) | 7 | Familiar objects (pictures) |
✔ | — | — | |
| Storkel (2003) | 7 | Unfamiliar actions (pictures) |
✔ | — | — | |
| Gray & Brinkley (2011) | 105 | Unfamiliar or familiar (pictures) |
— | — | ✔ | |
| Gray, Brinkley, & Svetina (2012) | 132 | Unfamiliar or familiar objects |
— | — | ✔ | |
| Adults with TD | ||||||
| Storkel et al. (2006),c main effect of phonotactic probability |
7 | Black line drawings of nonobjects |
✔ | ✔ | ||
| Storkel et al. (2006), main effect of neighborhood density |
7 | Black line drawings of nonobjects |
✔ | ✔ | ||
Note. Check mark indicates statistically significant advantage over condition in unchecked column; dashes indicate not assessed; equals sign indicates no statistically significant differences. TD = typical language development.
Storkel and Lee (2011) Experiment 2 compared neighborhood density while holding phonotactic probability constant using words with medium rather than high or low phonotactic probability. Result plotted is for accuracy immediately after training.
Storkel and Rogers (2000) found a high probability-high density advantage for 10- and 13-year-olds but no effect for 7-year-olds.
Storkel et al. (2006) found a low phonotactic probability advantage when they combined scores for completely and partially correct responses but no advantage for completely correct responses.