Literature DB >> 1185120

Familiarity affects visual processing of words.

A Pollatsek, A D Well, R M Schindler.   

Abstract

While previous research has demonstrated that words can be processed more rapidly and/or more accurately than random strings of letters, it has not been convincingly demonstrated that the superior processing of words is a visual effect. In the present experiment, the cases of letters were manipulated in letter strings that were to be compared on the basis of physical identity. Mean response time was shorter for words than for nonwords even for pairs of letter strings that differed only in case (e.g., site-site). This finding implies that the advantage of words over nonwords (the familiarity effect) typically observed in the simultaneous matching task is not due solely to comparison of either the word names or the letter names and, thus, that at least part of the familiarity effect must be due to more rapid formation and/or comparison of visual representations of the two letter strings when they are words. Further analysis failed to reveal a significant involvement of phonemic or lexical codes in the comparison judgments.

Mesh:

Year:  1975        PMID: 1185120     DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.1.4.328

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform        ISSN: 0096-1523            Impact factor:   3.332


  10 in total

1.  Contextual control of letter perception.

Authors:  R J Petersen; D Laberge
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1977-03

2.  The effects of lexical and semantic information on same-different visual comparison of words.

Authors:  R W Barron; L Henderson
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1977-09

3.  Letter search through words and nonwords: The effect of fixed, absent, or mutilated targets.

Authors:  L E Krueger; M E Weiss
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1976-03

4.  A word superiority effect with nonorthographic acronyms: testing for unitized visual codes.

Authors:  H Noice; H S Hock
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1987-11

5.  The word superiority effect in a case of Hiragana letter strings.

Authors:  T Miura
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1978-12

6.  The effect of phonemic processing on the retention of graphemic representations for words and nonwords.

Authors:  H S Hock; B Throckmorton; E Webb; A Rosenthal
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1981-09

7.  The primacy of visual information in the analysis of letter strings.

Authors:  M H Singer
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1980-02

8.  Letter and word code interactions elicited by normally displayed words.

Authors:  J A Lawry; D LaBerge
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1981-07

9.  Phonological and orthographic factors in the word-superiority effect.

Authors:  G Chastain
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1981-07

10.  What does the visual system know about words.

Authors:  T H Carr; A Pollatsek; M I Posner
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1981-02
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.