1979
DOI: 10.3758/bf03206104
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Visual word recognition of three-letter words as derived from the recognition of the constituent letters

Abstract: Word recognition is one of the basic processes involved in reading. In this connection, a model for word recognition is proposed consisting of a perceptual and a decision stage. It is supposed that, in the perceptual stage, the formation of possible words proceeds by separate identification of each of the letters of the stimulus word in their positions. Letter perception is taken to be conditional on position because of interaction effects from neighboring letters. These effects are dependent on both position … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
14
0

Year Published

1980
1980
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
1
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Perhaps readers are able to adopt such a strategy only when they can use top-down contextual information as well as bottomup featural information in making their identifications. Such contextual information was clearly available in the prose passage used in the present study but was absent from, or minimal in, previous studies of alphabetic confusions, which involved the presentation of single letters (e.g., Townsend, 1971), letter pairs (e.g., Podgorny & Garner, 1979), or short words (e.g., Bouwhuis & Bouma, 1979). Furthermore, such a strategy may be evident only when subjects view more than one letter at a time, just as it has recently been found (see Healy, Oliver, & McNamara, Note 1) that letterdetection errors occur predominantly in common words only when more than one word can be seen at once.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 69%
“…Perhaps readers are able to adopt such a strategy only when they can use top-down contextual information as well as bottomup featural information in making their identifications. Such contextual information was clearly available in the prose passage used in the present study but was absent from, or minimal in, previous studies of alphabetic confusions, which involved the presentation of single letters (e.g., Townsend, 1971), letter pairs (e.g., Podgorny & Garner, 1979), or short words (e.g., Bouwhuis & Bouma, 1979). Furthermore, such a strategy may be evident only when subjects view more than one letter at a time, just as it has recently been found (see Healy, Oliver, & McNamara, Note 1) that letterdetection errors occur predominantly in common words only when more than one word can be seen at once.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 69%
“…Although asymmetries have been found in some of the previous studies of alphabetic confusions (e.g., Garner & Haun, 1978;Gilmore, Hersh, Cararnazza, & Griffin, 1979;Lindsay & Norman, 1977;Tversky, 1977), they have not been consistently found and have not always taken this form. An important difference between Experiment 1 of the present study and most of the earlier studies of alphabetic confusions is that single letters (e.g., Townsend, 1971), letter pairs (e.g., Podgomy & Garner, 1979), or short words (e.g., Bouwhuis & Bouma, 1979) were presented in the earlier studies, whereas letters were presented in a normal prose context in Experiment 1. To my knowledge, the only other proofreading experiment aimed at studying alphabetic confusions was the one by Holbrook (1978), who did report effects of visual similarity but did not discuss asymmetries.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 72%
“…Quantitative contributions can only beelucidated in a formal word recognition model (for threeletter words, see Bouwhuis & Bouma, 1979). We adopted the information processing approach and assumed independent contributions of perceptual and linguistic factors.…”
Section: Word Recognitionmentioning
confidence: 99%