Literature DB >> 25283377

The resolution of visual noise in word recognition.

Hye K Pae1, Yong-Won Lee.   

Abstract

This study examined lexical processing in English by native speakers of Korean and Chinese, compared to that of native speakers of English, using normal, alternated, and inverse fonts. Sixty four adult students participated in a lexical decision task. The findings demonstrated similarities and differences in accuracy and latency among the three L1 groups. The participants, regardless of L1, had a greater advantage in nonwords than words for the normal fonts because they were able to efficiently detect the illegal letter strings. However, word advantages were observed in the visually distorted stimuli (i.e., alternated and inverse fonts). These results were explained from the perspectives of the theory of psycholinguistic grain size, L1-L2 distance, and the mechanism of familiarity discrimination. The native speakers of Chinese were more sensitive to visual distortions than the Korean counterpart, suggesting that the linguistic template established in L1 might play a role in word processing in English.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25283377     DOI: 10.1007/s10936-014-9310-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res        ISSN: 0090-6905


  11 in total

1.  Is the go/no-go lexical decision task an alternative to the yes/no lexical decision task?

Authors:  Manuel Perea; Eva Rosa; Consolación Gómez
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2002-01

2.  Alphabetic and nonalphabetic L1 effects in English word identification: a comparison of Korean and Chinese English L2 learners.

Authors:  Min Wang; Keiko Koda; Charles A Perfetti
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2003-03

3.  Case alternation and length effects in lateralized word recognition: studies of English and Hebrew.

Authors:  Michal Lavidor; Andrew W Ellis; Ainat Pansky
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 2.310

4.  Levels of phonological awareness in three cultures.

Authors:  Catherine McBride-Chang; Ellen Bialystok; Karen K Y Chong; Yanping Li
Journal:  J Exp Child Psychol       Date:  2004-10

5.  The time course of word frequency and case alternation effects on fixation times in reading: evidence for lexical control of eye movements.

Authors:  Eyal M Reingold; Jinmian Yang; Keith Rayner
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  Influence of case type, word frequency, and exposure duration on visual word recognition.

Authors:  P A Allen; B Wallace; T A Weber
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 3.332

Review 7.  Toward a strong phonological theory of visual word recognition: true issues and false trails.

Authors:  R Frost
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 17.737

8.  Writing systems: not optimal, but good enough.

Authors:  Mark S Seidenberg
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  2012-08-29       Impact factor: 12.579

9.  Strategies for visual word recognition and orthographical depth: a multilingual comparison.

Authors:  R Frost; L Katz; S Bentin
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1987-02       Impact factor: 3.332

Review 10.  Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: a psycholinguistic grain size theory.

Authors:  Johannes C Ziegler; Usha Goswami
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 17.737

View more
  2 in total

1.  Word inversion sensitivity as a marker of visual word form area lateralization: An application of a novel multivariate measure of laterality.

Authors:  Brandon J Carlos; Elizabeth A Hirshorn; Corrine Durisko; Julie A Fiez; Marc N Coutanche
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2019-02-23       Impact factor: 6.556

2.  Unmasking individual differences in adult reading procedures by disrupting holistic orthographic perception.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Hirshorn; Travis Simcox; Corrine Durisko; Charles A Perfetti; Julie A Fiez
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-05-26       Impact factor: 3.240

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.