Letter identification in word, nonword, and single-letter displays

Juola, James F.; Leavitt, David D.; Choe, Chong S.

doi:10.3758/bf03336725

Cited by 50 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Accordingly, this particular perceptual inference model cannot easily account for the frequently reported finding that letters embedded in words are identified better than those in orthographically regular pseudowords (Juola, Leavitt, & Choe, 1974;Manelis, 1974;McClelland, 1976;Spoehr & Smith, 1973;Paap et al, Note 1). More important, there is a growing body of literature that suggests that orthographic structure does not always contribute to the magnitude of the WSE (Johnston, 1978;Manelis, 1974;McClelland & Johnston, 1977;Paap et al, Note 1).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Do small visual angles produce a word superiority effect or differential lateral masking?

Paap

Newsome

1980

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purcell, Stanovich, and Spector (1978) report that recognition of the center letter of the words APE, ARE, ACE, and AGE is superior to recognition of the same targets in the nonwords formed by the context letters V_H. Since a small set of predesignated targets was used and there was complete certainty about the location of the target letter, these results pose serious problems for three otherwise viable accounts for why word superiority effects (WSEs) are obtained in a variety of other paradigms. This series of experiments explores the possibility that the word advantages reported by Purcell et aI. have nothing to do with the lexical properties of the A_E display or the general phenomenon of word superiority, but they result from a fortuitous case of differential lateral masking. This reinterpretation is supported by five experiments. Experiments 1 and 2 show that the A_E word advantages are anomalous in that the magnitude of the WSE obtained with these particular words is not contingent upon the presence of a patterned mask. Experiment 3 provides direct evidence for differential lateral masking by showing that digit recognition is poorer in the V_H than in the A_E frame. Experiments 4 and 5 show that the WSE obtained under these conditions does not generalize to a new set of words and nonwords that produce the same amount of lateral masking. It was concluded that a genuine WSE does not occur under the conditions tested by Purcell et al., and that, therefore, the WSE has not been shown to depend on visual angle.Letter recognition is usually better when a target is presented in a word compared with when it is presented either alone or in a sequence of orthographically irregular letters. Reicher's (1969) contribution to our understanding of this word superiority effect (WSE) was to control for response biases by forcing subjects to choose between two alternatives that did not change the lexical status of the test display. That is, on word trials both alternatives would form a word, whereas the incorrect alternative on non word trials would always form another nonword. Since word advantages occur with this control, it is clear that the WSE involves more than a simple bias to respond with a letter name that forms a word in the surrounding context. Subsequent tests of various hypotheses concerning the locus of the WSE have often sought to determine the necessary and sufficient conditions for its occurSpecial thanks must go to Richard A. Ward, who maintained a cheerful and enthusiastic demeanor that was sure to sustain the motivation of our subjects, despite the fact that he changed . thousands of cards during the data collection phase of Experiments 1-4. Furthermore, Experiment 2 was his idea. We also thank Steve Burczak for assisting in the data collection of Experiment 3 and Jim Kiesel for collecting the data for Experiment 5. Earlier versions of this paper benefited from the comments of Dominic Massaro and the CIP group at NMSU, and the final product significantly reflects the concerns of an anonymous reviewer.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Do small visual angles produce a word superiority effect or differential lateral masking?

Paap

Newsome

1980

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They replicated Reicher's word-letter effect with a pattern mask, but found performance equivalent for words and letters when the pattern mask was replaced by a contourless masking field. Juola, Leavitt, and Choe (1974) also found equivalent performance for words and letters in the Reicher task when they used a dark postexposure field. The primary question raised by these findings is why different masks differentially favor the recognition of words and letters.…”

mentioning

confidence: 87%

Differential backward masking of words and letters by masks of varying orthographic structure

Taylor

Chabot

1978

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of structural relationships between targets and masks were investigated using a backward-masking paradigm. Specifically, the masking of single letters, common fiveletter words, and five-letter pseudowords masked by a blank flash, strings of overlapped letters, pseudowords, and words was investigated. Target duration was varied from 2 to 32 msec, with mask duration held constant at 25 msec. The dependent measure was the critical interstimulus interval for correct target identification. Letters were more effectively masked than words and pseudowords. A blank mask caused the least amount of masking, followed by the overlapped letter strings, and then the word and pseudoword masks. In addition to the overall greater masking effectiveness for the three patterned masks, overlapped letter strings masked letters more effectively than they did words. The implications of current theories of masking for these results and the implications of these results for theories of word recognition were discussed.In 1969, Reicher demonstrated that for brief visual presentations, letters are recognized more accurately when embedded in four-letter words than when presented alone, even when the redundancy advantage for words is controlled. This advantage for words over letters, or "word-letter effect," was obtained when the letters and words were followed by a visual mask. Johnston and McClelland (1973) demonstrated that the word-letter effect depends on the presence of a pattern mask. They replicated Reicher's word-letter effect with a pattern mask, but found performance equivalent for words and letters when the pattern mask was replaced by a contourless masking field. Juola, Leavitt, and Choe (1974) also found equivalent performance for words and letters in the Reicher task when they used a dark postexposure field. The primary question raised by these findings is why different masks differentially favor the recognition of words and letters.One suggestion as to the source

show abstract

“…When perceptual recognition of words and pseudowords is compared, an advantage for words is frequently found (Juola, Leavitt, & Choe, 1974;Manelis, 1974;McClelland, 1976). This "word superiority effect" has sometimes been invoked as evidence for whole-word perceptual units (Juola et al, 1974;Bruder, Note 1). However, the word superiority effect could have a number of loci in addition to the hypothesized use of whole-word units in early visual processing.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Isolating visual units in the perception of words and nonwords

Taylor

Miller

Juola

1977

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In three experiments, reaction times for same-different judgments were obtained for pairs of words, pronounceable nonwords (pseudcwords), and unpronounceable nonwords. The stimulus strings were printed either in a single letter case or in one of several mixtures of upper-and lowercase letters. In Experiment 1, the stimuli were common one-and two-syllable words; in Experiment 2, the stimuli included both words and pseudowords; and in Experiment 3, words, pseudowords, and nonwords were used. The functional visual units for each string type were inferred from the effects that the number and placement of letter case transitions had on same reaction time judgments. The evidence indicated a preference to encode strings in terms of multiletter perceptual units if they are present in the string. The data also suggested that whole words can be used as functional visual units, although the ex~t of their use depends on contextual parameters such as knowledge that a word will be presented"For over a century, the question of how we perceive letter strings, and words in particular, has both fascinated and troubled experimental psychologists. For some, it has seemed obvious that we perceive individual letters and assemble a word from them. Others have maintained that we perceive whole words directly, while still others have postulated intermediate perceptual units such as spelling patterns, syllables, and vocalic center groups (Smith & Spoehr, 1974). To the casual observer it must seem perplexing that psychologists have been unable to resolve such a seemingly simple issue in favor of one or another alternative. However, many investigations have resulted in conflicting indications of what constitutes the appropriate visual unit in word perception.It is understandable that there is reluctance to abandon the attempt to identify a single perceptual unit. If more than one perceptual unit is hypothesized, then an adequate model must specify which units exist and how these units are coordinated. The model to which we subscribe is a process model similar to the one proposed by LaBerge and Samuels

show abstract

Letter identification in word, nonword, and single-letter displays

Cited by 50 publications

References 11 publications

Do small visual angles produce a word superiority effect or differential lateral masking?

Do small visual angles produce a word superiority effect or differential lateral masking?

Differential backward masking of words and letters by masks of varying orthographic structure

Isolating visual units in the perception of words and nonwords

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About