Literature DB >> 16808957

Feature detection and letter identification.

Denis G Pelli1, Catherine W Burns, Bart Farell, Deborah C Moore-Page.   

Abstract

Seeking to understand how people recognize objects, we have examined how they identify letters. We expected this 26-way classification of familiar forms to challenge the popular notion of independent feature detection ("probability summation"), but find instead that this theory parsimoniously accounts for our results. We measured the contrast required for identification of a letter briefly presented in visual noise. We tested a wide range of alphabets and scripts (English, Arabic, Armenian, Chinese, Devanagari, Hebrew, and several artificial ones), three- and five-letter words, and various type styles, sizes, contrasts, durations, and eccentricities, with observers ranging widely in age (3 to 68) and experience (none to fluent). Foreign alphabets are learned quickly. In just three thousand trials, new observers attain the same proficiency in letter identification as fluent readers. Surprisingly, despite this training, the observers-like clinical letter-by-letter readers-have the same meager memory span for random strings of these characters as observers seeing them for the first time. We compare performance across tasks and stimuli that vary in difficulty by pitting the human against the ideal observer, and expressing the results as efficiency. We find that efficiency for letter identification is independent of duration, overall contrast, and eccentricity, and only weakly dependent on size, suggesting that letters are identified by a similar computation across this wide range of viewing conditions. Efficiency is also independent of age and years of reading. However, efficiency does vary across alphabets and type styles, with more complex forms yielding lower efficiencies, as one might expect from Gestalt theories of perception. In fact, we find that efficiency is inversely proportional to perimetric complexity (perimeter squared over "ink" area) and nearly independent of everything else. This, and the surprisingly fixed ratio of detection and identification thresholds, indicate that identifying a letter is mediated by detection of about 7 visual features.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16808957     DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2006.04.023

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vision Res        ISSN: 0042-6989            Impact factor:   1.886


  81 in total

1.  Effects of grammatical categories on letter detection in continuous text.

Authors:  Denis Foucambert; Michael Zuniga
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2012-02

2.  Psychophysical reverse correlation with multiple response alternatives.

Authors:  Huanping Dai; Christophe Micheyl
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  Rapid and long-lasting reduction of crowding through training.

Authors:  Amit Yashar; Jiageng Chen; Marisa Carrasco
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  A masked priming ERP study of letter processing using single letters and false fonts.

Authors:  Priya Mitra; Donna Coch
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 3.282

5.  Not all visual features are created equal: early processing in letter and word recognition.

Authors:  Sophie N Lanthier; Evan F Risko; Jennifer A Stolz; Derek Besner
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2009-02

Review 6.  Reverse hierarchies and sensory learning.

Authors:  Merav Ahissar; Mor Nahum; Israel Nelken; Shaul Hochstein
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2009-02-12       Impact factor: 6.237

7.  Comparing models of the combined-stimulation advantage for speech recognition.

Authors:  Christophe Micheyl; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Foveal analysis and peripheral selection during active visual sampling.

Authors:  Casimir J H Ludwig; J Rhys Davies; Miguel P Eckstein
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-01-02       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  The perception of a familiar face is no more than the sum of its parts.

Authors:  Jason M Gold; Jarrett D Barker; Shawn Barr; Jennifer L Bittner; Alexander Bratch; W Drew Bromfield; Roy A Goode; Mary Jones; Doori Lee; Aparna Srinath
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2014-12

10.  Efficient integration across spatial frequencies for letter identification in foveal and peripheral vision.

Authors:  Anirvan S Nandy; Bosco S Tjan
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2008-10-17       Impact factor: 2.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.