This study addressed two basic questions about the detection of multi-letter patterns: (a) How is the detection of a multi-letter pattern related to the detection of its individual components? (b) How is the detection of a sequence of letters influenced by the observer's familiarity with that sequence? In three experiments observers searched for one-, two-, or three letter patterns embedded in a rapid series of multiple six-letter frames. In Experiment 1, unfamiliar two-letter patterns were detected more accurately than their one-letter components. This two-letter advantage reflects the fact that in an array of fixed size, larger target stimuli contain more information and are easier to discriminate from nontarget alternatives. Quantitative analyses indicated that observers combine information not decisions, about the component letters in a pattern. In Experiment 2, with statistical and physical properties equated, a familiar three-letter pattern (i.e., CAT) was detected more accurately than its unfamiliar anagram (i.e., TCA). This word advantage in word (not letter) detection persisted even after extensive practice and was uninfluenced by the lexical character of distractor items. In Experiment 3, words (e.g., FIB), pronounceable non words (e.g., FIF(, and familiar acronyms (e.g., FBI) were detected more readily than unfamiliar items (e.g., IBF). Thus both orthographic knowledge and familiarity with specific sequences can facilitate perceptual processing in "word" detection.

Subjects searched for predesignated consonant-letters embedded in strings of consonants, consonants and vowels, or consonants and numbers. In Experiments 1-3, detection was quicker in the consonant-vowel and consonant-number strings than in the consonant strings. Apparently, vowels and numbers were less confusable distractors than are nontarget consonants. Experiment 4 tested whether psychophysical or categorical information about letters and numbers enabled subjects to process consonant-vowel and consonant-number strings more quickly. Results indicated that psychophysical characteristics of target and distractor letters mediated both word and nonword superiority effects.

Three classes of models for the origins of perceptual organization-linear independence, cognitive facilitation, and self-organization-were tested by evaluating the effects of stimulus uncertainty and pattern coherence on the detection of coherent motion in dynamic random-dot patterns. Stimulus patterns consisted of two successive frames of randomly positioned dots in which motion was perceived when the dot positions in successive frames were correlated and displaced. The number of alternative directions and locations of motion and the degree of coherence (correlation) between the two successive frames were manipulated. The effects of stimulus uncertainty were less than predicted by cognitive facilitation models and were less than predicted by one linear independence model (choice theory), although similar to the predictions of another linear model (the Peterson, Birdsall, & Fox, 1954, approximation of the optimum Gaussian model). Small, but significant, tendencies toward self-organization rather than linear independence of perceived motion in neighboring locations were indicated by a nonlinear effect of coherence on detection accuracy and by the superior detectability of the direction as compared with the location of motion.

Above- and below-average readers in grades 3, 5 and 7 named letters under two conditions. In one condition, letters were presented in normal orientation. In the other condition, letters were presented in left-right mirror image orientation. The ratio of (1) naming time on normal letters to (2) naming time on mirror image letters was calculated for each child. Good readers had lower ratios than poor readers. This was due primarily to the faster naming of normal letters by good readers. Good and poor readers named mirror image letters at similar speeds. Two possible explanations for the results are discussed. One explanation is that the skilled readers have a better memory for the normal orientation of the letter shapes. A second explanation is that skilled readers process more peripheral information, when naming, than their less skilled counterparts, but that this peripheral processing is curtailed when transformed text is presented.

No abstract