Matching between oral inward-outward movements of object names and oral movements associated with denoted objects.

In eight experiments, we explored matching effects between oral approach-avoidance movements triggered by word articulation and meaning of the objects the words denoted. Participants (total N = 1264) rated their liking for words that featured consonantal muscle stricture spots either wandering inwards (e.g., BODIKA, resembling ingestion movements) or outwards (e.g., KODIBA, resembling expectoration movements). These words were labelled as names for various objects. For objects the use of which entails ingestive oral actions (lemonade and mouthwash) inward words were preferred over outward words. For objects that trigger expectorative oral actions (toxical chemical, pill, and bubble gum) this preference was attenuated or even reversed (outward words were liked more than inward). Valence of the denoted object did not play a role in these modulations. Thus, the sagittal direction of mouth movements during silent reading meaningfully interacted with direction of oral actions associated with the denoted objects.

Training articulation sequences: A first systematic modulation of the articulatory in-out effect.

People prefer words with consonant articulation locations moving inward, from the front to the back of the mouth (e.g., menika), over words with consonant articulation locations moving outward, from the back to the front of the mouth (e.g., kemina). Here, we modulated this in-out effect by increasing the fluency of one consonant direction. Participants (total N = 735) memorized either inward or outward moving words. Afterward they evaluated different inward and outward words. In Experiment 1, training 60 outward (compared to inward) words led to a marginally significant attenuation of the in-out effect. In Experiment 2 and a preregistered replication (Experiment 3), training 120 inward words increased the size of the in-out effect, while training 120 outward words reversed the in-out effect. Experiment 4 confirms that consonant direction training affects fluency and rules out alternative explanations. Together, these experiments further supports a fluency explanation of the in-out effect and shows that abstract oral motor sequences can be learned implicitly. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

The role of fluency in preferences for inward over outward words.

The present studies examined a novel explanation for the in-out effect, the phenomenon that words with inward wanderings of consonantal articulation spots are preferred over words with outward wanderings. We hypothesized that processing fluency might account for the in-out effect instead of, or in addition to, the originally proposed mechanism of motor-associated motivational states. Inward words could be more fluently processed than outward words, which could lead to the preference effect. Corpus analyses (Studies 1a and 1b) revealed more inward than outward words in English and German, which could account for their differing fluency. Additionally, inward compared to outward words were pronounced faster (Study 2) and were rated as being easier to pronounce (Studies 3a and 3b), indicating greater fluency. Crucially, a mediation analysis (Study 4) suggests that the influence of consonantal direction on preference was partially mediated by fluency. However, accounting for the influence of fluency still left a significant residual in-out effect, not accounted for by our fluency measure. This evidence supports a partial causal contribution of articulation fluency to the in-out effect.

Can I cut the Gordian tnok? The impact of pronounceability, actual solvability, and length on intuitive problem assessments of anagrams.

When assessing a problem, many cues can be used to predict solvability and solving effort. Some of these cues, however, can be misleading. The present approach shows that a feature of a problem that is actually related to solving difficulty is used as a cue for solving ease when assessing the problem in the first place. For anagrams, it is an established effect that easy-to-pronounce anagrams (e.g., NOGAL) take more time to being solved than hard-to-pronounce anagrams (e.g., HNWEI). However, when assessing an anagram in the first place, individuals use the feature of pronounceability to predict solving ease, because pronounceability is an instantiation of the general mechanism of processing fluency. Participants (total N=536) received short and long anagrams and nonanagrams and judged solvability and solving ease intuitively without actually solving the items. Easy-to-pronounce letter strings were more frequently judged as being solvable than hard-to-pronounce letters strings (Experiment 1), and were estimated to require less effort (Experiments 2, 4-7) and time to be solved (Experiment 3). This effect was robust for short and long items, anagrams and nonanagrams, and presentation timings from 4 down to 0.5s, and affected novices and experts alike. Spontaneous solutions did not mediate this effect. Participants were sensitive to actual solvability even for long anagrams (6-11 letters long) presented only for 500 ms.