Literature DB >> 722255

Perceptual flexibility in word recognition: strategies affect orthographic computation but not lexical access.

T H Carr, B J Davidson, H L Hawkins.   

Abstract

Four tachistoscopic forced-choice recognition experiments explored the flexibility of processes underlying word perception. Stimuli were words, orthographically regular but unfamiliar pseudowords, and orthographically irregular nonsense strings. In the first two experiments, subjects knew that several different kinds of stimuli would occur in each block of trials and that one kind would occur much more often than the others. No matter which stimulus subjects expected to see most often, accuracy on words and pseudowords differed little, and both were identified considerably better than nonsense. In the third and fourth experiments, subjects were led to believe that only on stimulus type would occur but were surreptitiously shown another type on a small number of trials. Words were again identified more accurately than nonsense, and the size of the effect was independent of expectations. However, when either words or nonsense strings were expected exclusively, pseudoword accuracy did not differ from nonsense accuracy. Only when subjects knew that pseudowords would occur did they identify pseudowords more accurately than nonsense. This dissociation between word and pseudoword identification indicates the operation of two independent encoding mechanisms during tachistoscopic recognition, a stimulus-specific or logogenlike system sensitive to particular familiar strings and an orthographic mechanism sensitive to generally applicable constraints on letter sequencing. The stimulus-specific mechanism appears to be utilized automatically, but use of the orthographic mechanism is under strategic control. As shown in the first two experiments, however, rather extraordinary measures were required to demonstrate the flexibility of the orthographic processes used in this task.

Mesh:

Year:  1978        PMID: 722255     DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.4.4.674

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


  13 in total

1.  A new perspective on visual word processing efficiency.

Authors:  Joseph W Houpt; James T Townsend; Christopher Donkin
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  2013-12-13

2.  The acronym superiority effect.

Authors:  Sarah Laszlo; Kara D Federmeier
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2007-12

3.  Reevaluating split-fovea processing in word recognition: hemispheric dominance, retinal location, and the word-nonword effect.

Authors:  Timothy R Jordan; Kevin B Paterson; Stoyan Kurtev
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 3.282

4.  Automatic activation of phonological information in reading: evidence from the semantic relatedness decision task.

Authors:  C R Luo; R A Johnson; D A Gallo
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1998-07

5.  The word-detection effect: sophisticated guessing or perceptual enhancement?

Authors:  W Prinzmetal; C E Lyon
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1996-05

6.  Specific word transfer as a measure of processing in the word-superiority paradigm.

Authors:  C A Hayman; L L Jacoby
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1989-03

7.  Syllables and spelling units affect feature integration in words.

Authors:  M L Millis
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1986-09

8.  Word-to-letter inhibition: word-inferiority and other interference effects.

Authors:  G Chastain
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1986-07

9.  Are letter codes always activated?

Authors:  S N Greenberg
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1988-10

10.  Word superiority over isolated letters: the neglected case of forward masking.

Authors:  T R Jordan; K M Bevan
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1994-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.