Letter detection in very familiar texts

Eye movements as direct tests of the GO model for the missing-letter effect

“…On this matter, an extensive discussion, not based on direct evidence from eye movements, can be found in Healy's (1994) presentation of the unitization account/processing time hypothesis on which the GO model is partly based. Similarly, Greenberg and Tai (2001) suggested-without testing their hypothesis-that the disappearance of the missing-letter effect in the critical conditions of their study was due to a distorted pattern of eye movements. More recently and more precisely, Greenberg et al (2004) called upon eye movement data to support their main assumptions, and in many cases they suggested that the cognitive processes they proposed are mediated by eye movements.…”

The influence of multiple readings on the missing-letter effect revisited

“…giser, Chizzick, & Willitts, 1988;Drewnowski, 1978Drewnowski, , 1981Mohan, 1978;Saint-Aubin, Klein, & Landry, 2005), and text repetition (Greenberg & Tai, 2001). The present article is centered on text repetition, since its influence on the missing-letter effect is still unclear and constitutes a challenge for models of the effect.…”

“…There are multiple reasons for the interest in rereading. Among them, it is worth mentioning that rereading is a common and suitable strategy for learning new information, allows investigation of the influence of implicit memory on reading, and can be used to manipulate text difficulty (see, e.g., Greenberg & Tai, 2001;Raney, 2003;Rayner, Raney, & Pollatsek, 1995). For investigating the missing-letter effect, it is useful because it is a way of experimentally increasing word-processing speed while maintaining all other factors constant.…”

“…Consequently, the influences of multiple readings and of multiple searches usually covary, but it is necessary to isolate them from one other in investigating the influence of rereading on the missing-letter effect. Greenberg and Tai (2001) are the only ones to investigate the effect of text familiarity without the confounding influence of multiple searches (the study of Healy et al, 1987, is an example of a study in which repeated reading and repeated searching are confounded). In one experiment, Greenberg and Tai contrasted omission rates for target letters embedded in function and content words from well-known nursery rhymes (e.g., "Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water") with those for target letters embedded in words from unfamiliar, control sentences derived from the same nursery rhymes (e.g., "Amy and John went by the lake to catch a fish for later").…”

“…The other experiment of Greenberg and Tai (2001) circumvented the above-mentioned problems by using a different methodology. Participants read a sentence aloud either two or five times and then were asked to read a short paragraph composed of four sentences.…”