Word Recognition I

Grainger, Jonathan

doi:10.1002/9781119705116.ch3

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 94 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Adult skilled readers can identify written words, regardless of their visual form (e.g., handwritten text, captchas), with relative ease (e.g., Grainger, 2022 ; Hannagan et al, 2012 ; Qiao et al, 2010 ). To explain this capability, researchers often propose that the letter detectors in our word recognition system have developed a tolerance to noise, a mechanism that would be shared with the detectors in neurobiological models of object recognition (e.g., Dehaene et al, 2005 ; Riesenhuber & Poggio, 1999 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One of the most remarkable feats of human cognition is our capacity to read efficiently under suboptimal scenarios (see Grainger, 2018 , 2022 ; Grainger & Dufau, 2012 , for reviews). We can effortlessly read words even if the visual appearance of their constituent letters is less than perfect with only a small cost, as in the case of words written with poor handwriting (e.g., ; see Barnhart & Goldinger, 2010 ; Qiao et al, 2010 ; Vergara-Martínez et al, 2021 ), words with rotated letters (e.g., ; see Blythe et al, 2019 ; Fernández-López et al, 2021 ; Kim & Straková, 2012 ), words with digit-like (“leet”) letters (e.g., see Molinaro et al, 2010 ; Perea et al, 2008 ), or even Captchas (e.g., , see Hannagan et al, 2012 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Examining Letter Detector Tolerance through Offset Letter Halves: Evidence from Lexical Decision

Perea,

Romero-Ortells,

Labusch

et al. 2023

Journal of Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neurobiological models of reading assume that the specialized detectors at the letter level (e.g., the arrays of detectors for the letter 'n') possess a certain degree of tolerance (e.g., Local Combination Detectors model, Dehaene et al. 2005). In this study, we designed two lexical decision experiments that examined the limits of tolerance of letter detectors by introducing a novel manipulation involving shifting letter halves (e.g., in Experiment 1; in Experiment 2) relative to intact items. This manipulation alters the transition between upper and lower parts of the letters, adding junctions that do not exist in the intact letter forms. We included high-and low-frequency words in the stimulus list to investigate whether letter distortion affects processing beyond the letter level, reasoning that interactive effects would signal top-down lexical feedback. In Experiment 1, which employed a subtle letter shift, we observed a minimal cost of letter distortion that did not interact with word frequency. Experiment 2, employing a larger letter shift, revealed an overall greater reading cost that affected differentially high-and low-frequency words. Overall, these findings offer insights into the limits of resilience in letter detectors to distortion during word recognition and introduce a novel manipulation of letter distortion.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining Letter Detector Tolerance through Offset Letter Halves: Evidence from Lexical Decision

Perea,

Romero-Ortells,

Labusch

et al. 2023

Journal of Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies on short-term memory have identified several types of serial position effects indicating that the position of information in a sequence matters (e.g., Oberauer et al, 2018 ). Similarly, in the study of reading processes, crowding effects indicate that information situated inside a sequence receives more interference compared to information situated at the beginning or the end (e.g., Grainger, 2022 ). The extraction of an AB regularity may therefore depend on the ordinal position of the regularity with regularities situated inside the sequence being potentially harder to extract than the ones situated at the beginning or the end.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simple questions on simple associations: regularity extraction in non-human primates

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When human and non-human animals learn sequences, they manage to implicitly extract statistical regularities through associative learning mechanisms. In two experiments conducted with a non-human primate species (Guinea baboons, Papio papio), we addressed simple questions on the learning of simple AB associations appearing in longer noisy sequences. Using a serial reaction time task, we manipulated the position of AB within the sequence, such that it could be either fixed (by appearing always at the beginning, middle, or end of a four-element sequence; Experiment 1) or variable (Experiment 2). We also tested the effect of sequence length in Experiment 2 by comparing the performance on AB when it was presented at a variable position within a sequence of four or five elements. The slope of RTs from A to B was taken for each condition as a measurement of learning rate. While all conditions differed significantly from a no-regularity baseline, we found strong evidence that the learning rate did not differ between the conditions. These results indicate that regularity extraction is not impacted by the position of the regularity within a sequence and by the length of the sequence. These data provide novel general empirical constraints for modeling associative mechanisms in sequence learning.

show abstract

“…One of the major challenges of visual word recognition research has been the investigation of complex words consisting of more than one morpheme. While much research has examined the processing of monomorphemic words (e.g., Grainger, 2008Grainger, , 2022Grainger et al, 2016;Norris, 2013;Rastle, 2007), fewer studies have addressed the essential role of morphological factors during reading (e.g., Rastle, 2022). As a result, reading theories capturing the complexity of orthographic and semantic processes are still underspecified with regard to morphologically complex words.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Positional encoding of morphemes in visual word recognition.

Spencer,

Kahraman,

Beyersmann

2024

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reading morphologically complex words requires analysis of their morphemic subunits (e.g., play + er); however, the positional constraints of morphemic processing are still little understood. The current study involved three unprimed lexical decision experiments to directly compare the positional encoding of stems and affixes during reading and to investigate the role of semantics during the position encoding of morphemes. Experiment 1 revealed that transposed compound words were harder to reject than their controls (e.g., dreamday vs. shadeday), whereas there was no difference between transposed suffixed words and their controls (e.g., fulpain vs. adepain). Experiment 2 replicated the results for transposed compound words of the first experiment and further showed that there was no difference between transposed prefixed words and their controls (e.g., qualifydis vs. qualifymis). Experiment 3 investigated the role of semantic transparency in morpheme transposition effects and revealed a larger morpheme transposition effect for semantically transparent transposed compound words (e.g., cuptea vs. taptea) than for semantically opaque transposed compound words (e.g., linedead vs. deskdead). These results bring to light important differences in the positional encoding of stems and affixes, suggesting that prefixes and suffixes are recognized in a position-dependent manner compared to the position-independent encoding of embedded stems and that morpheme transposition effects are guided by semantics. The current findings call for more clearly specified theoretical models of visual word recognition that reflect the distinct positional constraints of stems and affixes, as well as the influence of semantics on morphological processing.

show abstract

Word Recognition I

Cited by 5 publications

References 94 publications

Examining Letter Detector Tolerance through Offset Letter Halves: Evidence from Lexical Decision

Examining Letter Detector Tolerance through Offset Letter Halves: Evidence from Lexical Decision

Simple questions on simple associations: regularity extraction in non-human primates

Positional encoding of morphemes in visual word recognition.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About