Graphemic analysis underlying literacy

Kolers, Paul Α.; Palef, Sandra R.; Stelmach, Lew B.

doi:10.3758/bf03198271

Cited by 33 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, Kolers et al (1980) have suggested that prior experienee with specifie visual letter-sequenee or word patterns will lead to positive transfer when those patterns are eneountered in later text proeessing. They argued that this transfer oeeurs at the level of visual operations, sinee the patterning effeet disappeared when changes were made in the visual display (e.g., when letters were separated by spaees or when the typeseript was ehanged).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Did this fmding indicate that knowledge at any level of analysis (feature, word, syntactic, semantic) equally constrained later visual analyses, and that some additive influence occurred when all levels were repeated? Or, were we observing some general effect of experience, in no way related to the text, with the "replication" superiority, then, being attributable to a "specific experience" factor (e.g., Kolers et al, 1980)? To explore these alternatives, two further types of prior experience were tested: (1) a nonspecific experience, in which subjects read one text and then proofread a dif- Table 3 contains the means relevant to these interactions.…”

Section: (B) Patterns In Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Or, could the transfer between tasks be at some lower level of analysis, such as the transfer of visually specific processing skills? Kolers and his colleagues (Kolers & Magee, 1978;Kolers, Palef, & Stelmach, 1980) have studied the general transfer from different types of practice to subsequent reading tasks. They have reported maximal transfer to text reading when practice was given on reading orthographically regular letter sequences or words, rather than single letters.…”

Section: Experiments 2amentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Proofreading familiar text: Constraints on visual processing

Levy

1983

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent emphasis on the interactive nature of processing during reading has focused attention on how higher level syntactic-semantic processes might constrain or alter the proesseing of letters and words during reading. The present studies addressed this question by examining the effect of prior knowledge about a passage on the subsequent ability to see visual errors when rereading the same text. Experiment 1 demonstrated that prior knowledge of a passage leads to better proofreading of that passage. Experiment 2 showed that this facilitation is at the level of visual letter and word analyses, not through higher level constraints on rereading. The data are discussed in terms of skilled visual pattern analyses and in terms of the redistribution of processing resources.Since recent models of reading have focused on the that "set into striking relief any discrepancy or 'correcinteractive (e.g., Rumelhart, 1977), rather than the tion' present among its parts" (Kreuger, 1975, p. 969). serial, nature of processing during reading, considerableThat is, does prior knowledge act to conceal or reveal research has addressed the question of whether context a discrepancy from the expected item? or prior knowledge might constrain the processing of the Recent studies of visual word recognition, using letters and words being read. Interest is in whether manipulations of contextual constraint or of past higher level processes (e.g., word, syntactic, or semantic familiarity with the linguistic units, have provided processes) might change or constrain the analyses of some evidence on this question. Since the early dernonIetters and words within a text. The experiments to be strations of the word superiority effect (Reicher, 1969; described were motivated by an interest in this basic Wheeler, 1970), evidence has accumulated to suggest question.that the perception of a constituent letter is faciliAlthough most experiments have addressed this issue tated by a familiar word context (see Kreuger, 1975, by studying on-line contextual constraints during read-and Levy, 1981, for reviews of the familiarity and coning, the present experiments looked at the influence of textual effects). Recently, Rumelhart and McClelland prior knowledge by examining the transfer of inforrna-(1982) reported an impressive series of studies showing tion from one reading of a text to the subsequent read-that the presentation conditions of contextual letters ing of the same text. Having once read a text, most affected the perception of a target letter. Again, confluent readers will reread that passage faster and more textual facilitation was observed in identification of a easily on subsequent occasions. That is, there appears constituent letter. Thus, processing of letters in a word to be some transfer of text-specific knowledge from context facilitated perception not only of the whole one reading session to another. The theoretical issue pattern, but also of its constituent elements. addressed, then, was whether this faster rereading is due But does prior knowle...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: (B) Patterns In Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Experiments 2amentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Proofreading familiar text: Constraints on visual processing

Levy

1983

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, items are identified more easily in later than in earlier presentations, and the effects of an earlier presentation may be strong and enduring (Jacoby, 1983a;Jacoby & Dallas, 1981;Kolers, 1976). Moreover, the facilitation of subsequent exposures appears to depend not simply on repetition of the item itself, but also on reinstatement of contextual elements such as symbolic domain (Warren & Morton, 1982), list context (Jacoby, 1983a), and typeface (Kolers, Palef, & Stelmach, 1980). Thus perception appears to depend on the episodic detail of previous experiences as well as on stimulus regularity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Enduring influence of the purpose of experiences: Encoding-retrieval interactions in word and pseudoword perception

Whittlesea

Cantwell

1987

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Three explanations will be considered. First, a visual-skills account can be derived from the work of Kolers, Palef, and Stelmach (1980), showing transfer from one reading experience to another when the same visual patterns (in the same typefont and spatial arrangement) were encoded on both occasions. Basically, they suggested that the "priming" of the visual pattern-recognition system during reading led to more rapid rereading when those same visual patterns were reexperienced.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proofreading familiar text: Allocating resources to perceptual and conceptual processes

Levy

Begin

1984

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Levy (1983)demonstrated that more spelling errors were detected, within a limited time period, when familiar passages were proofread than when unfamiliar passages were proofread, In the present series, Experiment 1 eliminated a possible confound in the Levy (1983)studies and showed that errors were detected both faster and more accurately in familiar texts. Experiment 2 demonstrated higher order involvement in the proofreading transfer effect, suggesting that a strictly word-level account was insufficient. Experiment 3 explored the proofreader's sensitivity to the semantic properties of the proofreading passage, showing that the familiarity effect resulted from more efficient processing, not from lack of either visual or semantic analyses. The results are more consistent with a resource-allocation explanation than with either a visual-scanning or a skilled-Visual-processing account.The theoretical issue addressed in the present experiments was the relationship between familiarity with a text and the processing of the written words, with their constituent letters, within that text. Familiarity may lead to faster, more fluent rereading of a passage, but the question is whether a gain in rereading speed is through less thorough analysis of the printed display. That is, reading speed may be gained because less visual processing is needed to recognize familiar word patterns, and thus the printed text is less completely analyzed during rereading. Or, rapid rereading may include just as thorough, but more efficient, analysis of the visual display. Thus, speed may be gained either through attenuated or through more fluent visual reprocessing of a familiar text. Our interest, then, was in the relationship between familiarity and the extensiveness of visual word and letter analyses.Many earlier studies have used constituent-letterdetection tasks to investigate the relationship between word familiarity and constituent-letter recognition. These studies frequently have reported a word superiority effect (Reicher, 1969;Wheeler, 1970), whereby the perception of a target letter is facilitated because the letter is embedded in a familiar word, rather than in a nonword. These studies suggest that familiarity with a word unit This research was supported by Grant A7657 from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. The manuscript was prepared while the first author was on sabbatical leave visiting the School of Behavioural Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, and the Department of Psychology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. We thank colleagues there for helpful discussions of the work reported here, and particularly Adrienne Bennett, Steven Hausfeld, and Donald Thomson for their comments on drafts of the manuscript. We also thank Meredyth Daneman for providing most of the passages used in Experiment 3 and for her critical comments on the Levy (1983) paper that motivated some of the issues studied here. The authors' mailing address is: Department of Psychology, McMaster University, Hami...

show abstract

Graphemic analysis underlying literacy

Cited by 33 publications

References 9 publications

Proofreading familiar text: Constraints on visual processing

Proofreading familiar text: Constraints on visual processing

Enduring influence of the purpose of experiences: Encoding-retrieval interactions in word and pseudoword perception

Proofreading familiar text: Allocating resources to perceptual and conceptual processes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About