A perceptual-confusion account of the WSE in the target search paradigm

Paap, Kenneth R.; Newsome, Sandra L.

doi:10.3758/bf03204462

Cited by 23 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Identification accuracy should thus be equal at the initial position, but perhaps at the terminal position differences in the efficiency of testing with the two string types would yield a WSE. A WSE is sometimes greater for targets at the terminal position (Greenberg & Krueger, 1980), but this has not been observed consistently (Chastain, 1982;Paap & Newsome, 1980b) and was not found in the current experiments. Apparently, even when serial, letter-by-letter analysis has occurred, differences in the way in which orthographic and nonorthographic strings are treated begin very early.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 41%

“…A letter from a small predesignated set can be identified correctly more often if it appears in a letter string that forms a word than if it appears in a string of randomly chosen letters (Carr, Lehmkuhle, Kottas, AstorStetson, & Arnold, 1976;Chastain, 1981;Paap & Newsome, 1980b;Spector & Purcell, 1977). Questions persist about the nature of the processes that result in this word-superiority effect (WSE).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Directional letter-by-letter analysis and the word-superiority effect

Chastain

1984

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Manipulations were introduced in three experiments to produce letter-by-letter analysis of orthographic (CVC) and nonorthographic (CCV or VCC) trigrams. Letters in the trigrams were presented in a different form (normal orientation and order, normal orientation but reversed order, reversed orientation but normal order, or reversed orientation and order) to each of four groups in the first experiment, and in each of the two normal orientation forms to different groups in the second experiment. Subjects both detected the presence or absence of a target letter and classified each trigram as a word or nonword. Additional changes were introduced in the third experiment to ensure that letters were being analyzed in the desired order. Performance was consistently better on orthographic trigrams, but only if the letters were oriented normally. This word-superiority effect (WSE) was related to feature testing that may be carried out letter by letter, with more efficient testing on words. Familiar orientation of letter features seems to be necessary; otherwise, testing becomes so difficult that there is no WSE. However, testing apparently is not finished on a given letter before it is begun on the next. 195A letter from a small predesignated set can be identified correctly more often if it appears in a letter string that forms a word than if it appears in a string of randomly chosen letters (Carr, Lehmkuhle, Kottas, AstorStetson, & Arnold, 1976;Chastain, 1981;Paap & Newsome, 1980b;Spector & Purcell, 1977). Questions persist about the nature of the processes that result in this word-superiority effect (WSE). One issue is whether the positions in the string must be simultaneously analyzed for the WSE to appear (Adams, 1979). Johnston (1981) and Johnston and McClelland (1974) found that the advantage produced by the word context is eliminated if the position of the target is known in advance of the appearance of the string. Apparently, the other letters are not analyzed with the target, if at all. Some investigators have attempted to encourage serial analysis of the positions in the string by using wide interletter spacing. This manipulation has been found to eliminate the WSE (Purcell & Stanovich, 1982;Purcell, Stanovich, & Spector, 1978; but see Paap & Newsome, 1980a), but perhaps again because it discourages analysis of all the letters presented. Finally, Travers (1975) found that serial presentation of letters in the string is more detrimental to letter identification in words than in nonwords. However, although no statistical analysis was reported, a weak WSE still seems to be present in those data. A WSE defmitely appeared in a sequential presentation study reported by Krueger (1971), but since noThe author would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions on an earlier draft of this article. Requests for reprints should be addressed to Garvin Chastain, Department of Psychology, Boise State University, Boise, ID 83725. masks were used, it is difficult to relate this to a typical WSE, which req...

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 41%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Directional letter-by-letter analysis and the word-superiority effect

Chastain

1984

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Evidence from the use of brief exposures suggests that this may be the case. Paap and Newsome (1980) found that the wordnonword effect was not eliminated by the use of a position precue. Thus the cause of the word-nonword and wordsingle-letter effects might be different.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Johnston and McClelland (1974) found that when subjects were told the target position in advance and were asked to attend only to an individual letter, performance for words actually declined. Thus, with words, it might be possible to attend to individual letters rendering words functionally equivalent to nonwords (also see, e.g., Johnston, 1981a;Paap & Newsome, 1980). Certainly, under the conditions in the present experiment, subjects knew which position contained the target letter, and they had plenty of time to focus attention on that letter.…”

Section: Windmentioning

confidence: 99%

The word-superiority effect does not require a T-scope

Prinzmetal

1992

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Six experiments examined the possibility of obtaining a word-superiority effect (WSE) without the use of brief stimulus exposures or a poststimulus mask. In each experiment, subjects were presented a stimulus string and two alternative strings that differed by a single letter (Reicher, 1969). The alternatives and stimulus remained in view until subjects responded, and subjects were under no pressure to respond quickly. In Experiments 1-3, the stimuli were presented in very small type so that they were difficult to see. Subjects were significantly more accurate with words than with nonwords, letters embedded among digits, or letters embedded among number signs (#s). In Experiments 4 and 5, the stimuli were embedded in a simultaneously present pattern mask. Subjects were significantly more accurate with words than with single letters by themselves. In the final experiment, the stimuli were presented in a mask with specific spatial frequency characteristics, and performance was significantly better with words than with nonwords. The WSE is a more general phenomenon than previously supposed; it is not limited to a tachistoscopic exposure.Experiments in which visual stimuli are briefly presented in order to limit perfonnance are ubiquitous in experimental psychology. Instruments used to briefly present stimuli have included the electric spark generator, the gravity chronometer (Cattell, 1885), an oil lantern behind a photographic shutter (pillsbury, 1897), the tachistoscope, the point plotter, and the raster display of the familiar personal computer. Generically. these devices are known as T-scopes. Volumes of research have been based on the use of T-scopes, in one form or another.Despite the preponderance of this research, a few skeptics have questioned whether the results of T-scope experiments are informative about perception in more naturalistic settings. For example, Dodge (1907) likened studying vision with a brief exposure to perception in a thunderstorm. He contended not only that the results would fail to generalize to more naturalistic situations, but that the use of too brief an exposure would result in "making the conclusions not merely valueless but false" (p. 32). Katz (1925Katz ( /1989 complained that the frequent use of the T-scope led to a "tachistoscopic mentality." A more modem iconoclast, who was showing visitors his laboratory, is reported to have pointed to the room housing the tachistoscope and to have commented, "the devil lives there." It is true that we are rarely called upon to read briefly presented stimuli, except perhaps in a thunderstorm or in a discotheque with stroboscopic lighting.Nevertheless, research with brief exposures has led to many important findings, and so it may be rash to deni- grate this research. One of the best known of these findings, which is the subject of this paper, is Reicher's (1969) discovery of the word-superiority effect (WSE). Reicher briefly presented words, nonwords, or single-letter stimuli, followed by a visual noise mask. Subjects had to determine which...

show abstract

“…Differences in the frequency of letter clusters between written English word and nonword letter strings do not appear to provide the basis for the difference in accuracy with which target letters are identified in the two string types (McClelland & Johnston, 1977). Nor is target recognition accuracy related to word frequency under the backward masking presentation conditions that characterize studies of context effects (Manelis, 1977;Paap & Newsome, 1980). Finally, sophisticated guessing when context letters are perceived more clearly than the target does not seem to underlie the word advantage, because there is no relationship between the magnitude of the word superiority and the amount of constraint with respect to the target's possible identity provided by the word context (Johnston, 1978).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Word-to-letter inhibition: Word-inferiority and other interference effects

Chastain

1986

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four experiments were run to determine whether the interactive activation model would more accurately reflect the effect of context in letter perception by including word-to-letter inhibition resulting from word-to-word inhibition produced when multiple word units become active. The first three experiments found less accurate target letter discrimination in word than in nonword strings when a string was altered halfway through the exposure through adding or dropping a nontarget letter. The alteration changed a word to a different word or a nonword to a different nonword. Unaltered strings produced the typical word-superiority effect.The last experiment found an inverse relationship between target discrimination performance and the number of word substrings contained in each of a set of word quadrigrams that were individually exposed.A letter in a word can be identified more accurately than a letter in a string of letters that does not resemble a word (Reicher, 1969;Wheeler, 1970). Many possible explanations that seem simple and straightforward have been proposed, investigated, and rejected. Differences in shortterm memory for word and nonword strings have been eliminated as a basis for the word-superiority effect by use of forced choice procedures in which two alternatives for the target letter are either precued or presented immediately after the word or nonword string (Reicher, 1969). Familiar string shape is not a factor since strings are usually presented as uppercase block letters, and the effect has even been shown to persist with mixed upperand lowercase type (McClelland, 1976). Differences in processing strategies used by subjects for words and nonwords do not seem to be involved, because the wordsuperiority effect is found whether or not subjects expect letter strings to be words (Carr, Davidson, & Hawkins, 1978). Differences in the frequency of letter clusters between written English word and nonword letter strings do not appear to provide the basis for the difference in accuracy with which target letters are identified in the two string types (McClelland & Johnston, 1977). Nor is target recognition accuracy related to word frequency under the backward masking presentation conditions that characterize studies of context effects (Manelis, 1977;Paap & Newsome, 1980). Finally, sophisticated guessing when context letters are perceived more clearly than the target does not seem to underlie the word advantage, because there is no relationship between the magnitude of the word superiority and the amount of constraint with respect to the target's possible identity provided by the word context (Johnston, 1978).I would like to thank Alice Healy, Tom Carr, and an anonymous reviewer for constructive comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.Requests for reprints should be sent to Garvin Chastain, Department of Psychology, Boise State University, Boise, ID 83725.Because the relatively simple explanations have failed, more sophisticated models have recently been developed to account for the word-superiority ef...

show abstract

A perceptual-confusion account of the WSE in the target search paradigm

Cited by 23 publications

References 12 publications

Directional letter-by-letter analysis and the word-superiority effect

Directional letter-by-letter analysis and the word-superiority effect

The word-superiority effect does not require a T-scope

Word-to-letter inhibition: Word-inferiority and other interference effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About