Word superiority over isolated letters: The neglected case of forward masking

Abstract

Previous research shows that when briefly presented alphabetic stimuli are followed by pattern masks, letters in words are reported more accurately than are isolated letters (the "WordLetter Phenomenon," or WLP); however, when these masks are replaced by blank fields, the WLP disappears. These findings have led to the popular notion that the WLP reflects selective masking of ongoing stimulus processing and so critically depends on the use of poststimulus masks. Here we report three experiments which re-examine the role of masking in the WLP by contrasting the effects of postmasked displays with the effects of premasked displays in which words and isolated letters were preceded by a pattern mask and followed by a completely blank field. Despite the critical role generally assigned to poststimulus pattern masks, similar WLPs were obtained with pre-and postmasked displays. Implications for theories of word and letter recognition are discussed.By limiting the amount of time for which a word, nonword, or single letter is presented, information can be gained to determine which physical characteristics of words are encoded by the reader and over what time scale this encoding takes place. One particular finding in this area has maintained a considerable impact on contemporary views of word recognition since it was first reported more than twenty years ago. Using a two-alternative forced-choice procedure (generally known as the ReicherWheeler paradigm), a number of studies have shown that when alphabetic stimuli are followed by a pattern mask (composed of irregular arrangements of letter fragments or similar contours), letters in words are reported more accurately than are the same letters presented in isolation

Exploring the structure of the word recognition module: Psychological and computational investigations

“…Jordan & Bevan, 1994; in press a; in press b; Jordan & de Bruijn, 1993) that these findings (and other findings from the project; e.g.…”

“…This was indeed the case. Jordan and Bevan (1994) found almost identical WLPs when letter fragment masks were shown after or before each target stimulus, using masks matched to the width of word targets which, from our previous experiments, produce a strong WLP under backward masking conditions (Jordan & Bevan, in press a;Jordan & de Bruijn, 1993). Thus, the WLP cannot reflect the selective replacement of ongoing target processing in the way described by the IAM.…”

“…Thus, when words and isolated letters are followed by letter fragment masks, both types of target may become formed into composite percepts of target and mask which can make the location and extent of each target stimulus difficult to discriminate from the remainder of the image. According to this account, the WLP reflects an imbalance in the discriminability of letters in words and isolated letters in pattern masked displays, such that when masks which either match or exceed the width of word targets are used for both types of target, a disproportionately greater amount of masking is present in isolated letter displays, by virtue of the diminutive size of these target stimuli (the integration-discrimition accounc see Jordan & de Bruijn, 1993;Jordan & Bevan, 1994; in press a; in press b).…”

A multistream model of visual word recognition

“…The hybrid model of visual word recognition (Allen & Emerson, 1991;Allen & Madden, 1990;Allen, Madden, Weber, & Groth, 1993;Allen et al, 1995; see also Jordan, 1990Jordan, , 1995Jordan & Bevan, 1994Jordan, Thomas, Patching, & Scott-Brown, 2003) postulates a race to a central processor between information in a whole-word channel and that in a component-letter channel; each pathway attempts to use the spatial-frequency pattern of its basic unit of analysis to form a word code, and word recognition is based on information delivered by the channel that wins the race.…”

Constructing isoluminant stimuli for word recognition research: A precautionary study

“…However, the effects of masking on word recognition are far from understood, and masking often results in unintended, misleading effects on word recognition (for discussions, see, e.g., Jordan, 1995;Jordan & Bevan, 1994;Jordan & de Bruijn, 1993). Moreover, the role of spatial attention in word recognition is well established (see, e.g., Johnston, 1981;Johnston & McClelland, 1974;McCann, Folk, & Johnston, 1992;Stolz & McCann, 2000), and rapid local luminance fluctuations disrupt the allocation of normal attentional resources (see, e.g., Atchley, Kramer, & Hillstrom, 2000;Franconeri, Hollingworth, & Simons, 2005;Jonides & Yantis, 1988;Yantis & Jonides, 1984).…”