Word superiority in word detection

Selection from perceptual and conceptual representations

“…Lexical category has also been shown to affect attentional processes. Using the RSVP paradigm, Staller (1982) presented subjects with a series of letter strings, and the subjects were asked to detect a precued word (e.g., chair) or an anagram of the precued word (e.g., raich). Staller found a reliable word superiority effect in detection performance.…”

Effects of presentation complexity on rapid-sequential reading

“…Research on RSVP reading (with different kinds of memory and comprehension measurements, such as recall, sentence recognition, sentence verification, passage summarization, and multiple-choice comprehensive questions) indicates that when the need for eye movements is eliminated, readers can still read naturally without loss of memory and comprehension due to distraction or the need to learn new reading strategies (for relevant findings and reviews, see, e.g., Chen, in press;Juola et al, 1982;Masson, 1983;Potter, 1984;. Because the RSVP procedure allows experimental control over important input variables, such as the size and duration of the text segments presented, without interfering with the general comprehension processes, it has attracted a greal deal of attention as a research topic itself and has been widely used to study reading and related processes (see, e.g., Chen, in press;Cocklin, Ward, Chen, & Juola, 1984;Daneman & Carpenter, 1983;Healy, Oliver, & McNamara, 1982;Juola et al, 1982;Just, Carpenter, & Woolley, 1982;Kintsch & Mross, 1985;Krueger & Shapiro, 1979;Masson, 1983;McLean, Broadbent, & Broadbent, 1983;Potter, Kroll, & Harris, 1980;Staller, 1982; for a recent review, see Potter, 1984).…”

Search for a singular word or nonword.

“…We also made the nonword conversion effect less likely by using orthographically irregular nonwords whose spellings generally differed from those of words at several letter positions. Staller (1982;Staller & Lappin, 1981) likewise found that a target word is detected more accurately with RSVP than is a target nonword (unfamiliar, nonorthographic anagram). His range of presentation rates (32-160 ms per frame) is comparable to ours in Experiment 2 (50-200 ms per item), but his procedure differed from ours in many respects, most notably in his predesignation of word and nonword targets.…”

“…If not all features or letters can be encoded or compared, let alone rechecked, at the faster input rates in Experiment 2, then the opposite tendency (i.e., nonwords misperceived as words; Potter & Noel, 1987;Staller, 1982;Staller & Lappin, 1981) ought to predominate, according to the missing-feature principle (Eriksen et al, 1982;Krueger & Chignell, 1985). In early processing, spurious differences due to missing or unresolved features at encoding or comparison may be simply disregarded rather than interpreted as featural mismatches (internal-noise principle).…”

“…Items were force-fed at the rate of 50 ms, 100 ms, 150 ms, or 200 ms per word or nonword. At such a fast rate (100 ms or 150 ms per item), Potter and Noel (1987) obtained a nonword conversion effect, and Staller (1982;Staller & Lappin, 1981) found greater pop out for words than nonwords. This suggests that the missing-feature principle dominates at faster rates.…”