Naming Sequentially Presented Letters and Words

Kolers, Paul Α.; Katzman, Martin T.

doi:10.1177/002383096600900202

Cited by 38 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, the time required for processing has been estimated independently of eye movements by rapidly presenting a sequence of stimuli at a single retinal location. Under these conditions, the minimum exposure time required for the correct identification of each stimulus is 200 to 300 msec, very close to the range of fixation durations normally observed in skilled readers (Kolers & Katzman, 1966;Travers, 1973Travers, , 1975. Similarly, the time between two saccades has been measured, and again about 200 msec appears as the minimum time that must elapse between saccades (Tinker, 1958;Westheimer, 1954).…”

Section: Jonathan Vaughan and Thomas M Graefesupporting

confidence: 59%

Delay of stimulus presentation after the saccade in visual search

Vaughan

Graefe

1977

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Delay of stimulus onset after each saccade in visual search decreased oculomotor and manual reaction times, with a greater effect occurring for the oculomotor response. The saccadic oculomotor reaction might have been facilitated in three ways: by the facilitation of reaction with a foreperiod warning stimulus, by the attenuation of saccadic suppression effects due to the stimulus onset delay, or by the use of a strategy of preprogramming fixation durations. The results support a model of visual search using preprogrammed control of visual fixation durations.To study how the processing of visual information is related to the intermittent visual input produced by sequential fixations in search, one might simply measure the duration of a subject's fixations while he is engaged in a visual search task. However, this measurement confounds two factors that might contribute to the control of fixation duration: (1) the time required for cognitive processing of a visual stimulus, and (2) the time required for the oculomotor system to initiate the next successive saccade.

show abstract

Section: Jonathan Vaughan and Thomas M Graefesupporting

confidence: 59%

Delay of stimulus presentation after the saccade in visual search

Vaughan

Graefe

1977

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This would require the hypothesizing of some kind of sequential left-right processing. Serial processing of one letter at a time from left to right has been rejected on the grounds that complete processing of a single letter appears to take about 200·300 msec, a rate obviously too slow for reading (Kolers & Katzman, 1966).…”

Section: Sound-spelling Correspondencementioning

confidence: 99%

The importance of being first: A tachistoscopic study of the contribution of each letter to the recognition of four-letter words

Eriksen

1974

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three studies investigated the effect on the response time for voicing a four-letter word of delaying one of the letters or the entire word for intervals of up to 500 msec. Experiment I found delay of the first letter most detrimental, while delay of the second, third, or fourth letter facilitated performance. Experiment II confirmed these findings and indicated that delay of the entire word produced response times similar to delay of the first letter. Experiment III investigated the possibility that knowledge of the pronunciation of the first letter was the essential factor in facilitating performance when later letters were delayed. It was concluded that when pronunciation of the first letter was known, Ss were able to begin processing the word immediately.The purpose of the present experiments was to analyze the processes involved in the recognition of a single word by skilled readers. It is generally acknowledged that a skilled adult reader uses "higher order units" than words (Gibson, 1967) in reading the printed page. But it is also a rather obvious fact that the child, in learning to read, must at first proceed one word at a time. Although linguists continue to argue about whether the "word" is the "natural perceptual unit of spoken language [Jones, 1965, p.44]," it is apparent that our graphic representations are organized around words.Since the studies of Cattell in the latter part of the 19th century (Huey, 1908), it has been apparent that words are perceived somehow differently from single letters. Cattell reported that whole words could be recognized as quickly as single letters and that the response to a word could occur at a shorter latency than the response to a single letter. Cattell concluded that reading was done by whole-word units. This same conclusion has been reached by Reicher (1969) and Wheeler (1970). The question arises as to what cues are available in words which enable Ss to make these rapid judgments. Studies have concentrated on two lines of inquiry: cues related to letters as visual cues and cues related to sound-spelling correspondences. Visual CuesThe shape of the word, which depends on the pattern of letters, was proposed as the main means of recognition by Erdman and Dodge (Huey, 1908). Goldsheider and Muller (Huey, 1908) found that certain "determining" letters seemed to be more important to *This research was supported by Public Health Service Research Grant MH-1206 and United States Public Health Service Research Career Program Award K6-MH-22014 to the second author. The paper is based on a thesis submitted by the first author to the University of Illinois in partial fulfillment of the requirements for her master's degree. 66word recognition than others. By presenting word skeletons for identification, they found that the first letter was nearly always necessary for recognition and that other determining letters were those which supplied clues to the word sound.Using words with deliberate transpositional spelling errors, Bruner and O'Dowd (1958) found that errors at the beg...

show abstract

“…The method of presentation of the sentences is similar to that used by Kolers and Katzman (1966) in their study of the perception of rapidly presented letter sequences. Each word was photographed individually on successive frames of a 16-mm film, which was then projected with a variable-speed movie projector.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%