Literature DB >> 2314225

On time differences in searching for letters in words and nonwords: do they emerge during the initial encoding or the subsequent scan?

N F Johnson1, M J Carnot.   

Abstract

Krueger (1970a, 1970b, 1982) has demonstrated that subjects can search for target letters within words faster than they can complete an equivalent search through nonwords, and he further demonstrated that the effect did not arise during the comparison stage. The present study involved three experiments in which the usual word advantage disappeared either when subjects knew where within a display the target item would appear (i.e., it was always the first letter), or when all the component letters were encoded into memory before the task began (i.e., a memory-search task). These data, in conjunction with Krueger's, where interpreted as localizing at least one (and possibly the only) source of the word-nonword difference in this task to the events that occur during the item-to-item transitions subjects make when scanning the letter arrays. That is, these transitions are faster for words than nonwords, and it was suggested that the time difference may emerge because although all the letters from within a word appear to be available in memory before the scan begins, this seems not to be true for consonant arrays. Given that this is the case, part of the word-nonword difference may be attributable to subsequent encoding events that would be needed for the consonant arrays as the scan moves from letter to letter.

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2314225     DOI: 10.3758/bf03202643

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  10 in total

1.  Detection errors onthe andand: Evidence for reading units larger than the word.

Authors:  A Drewnowski; A F Healy
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1977-11

2.  The locus of the word-priority effect in a target-detection task.

Authors:  J A Sloboda
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1977-05

3.  Detecting letters in continuous text: effects of display size.

Authors:  A F Healy; W L Oliver; T P McNamara
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1987-05       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  Part-whole relationships in the processing of small visual patterns.

Authors:  N F Johnson; M Turner-Lyga; B S Pettegrew
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1986-01

5.  Accuracy and order of report in tachistoscopic identification.

Authors:  D J Mewhort
Journal:  Can J Psychol       Date:  1974-09

6.  Search time in a redundant visual display.

Authors:  L E Krueger
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1970-03

7.  Investigating the boundaries of reading units: letter detection in misspelled words.

Authors:  A F Healy; A Drewnowski
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1983-06       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  A word-superiority effect with print and braille characters.

Authors:  L E Krueger
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1982-04

9.  Why search for target absence is so slow (and careful!): the more targets there are, the more likely you are to miss one.

Authors:  L E Krueger; R G Shapiro
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1980-11       Impact factor: 3.332

10.  High-speed scanning in human memory.

Authors:  S Sternberg
Journal:  Science       Date:  1966-08-05       Impact factor: 47.728

  10 in total
  1 in total

Review 1.  Self-terminating versus exhaustive processes in rapid visual and memory search: an evaluative review.

Authors:  T Van Zandt; J T Townsend
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1993-05
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.