Motivational influences on word recognition: IV. Cortical magnification does not explain parafoveal versus foveal differences

Ferguson, Eva Dreikurs

doi:10.3758/bf03337367

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These experiments have also shown that the advantage in letter identification derived from word context is constant at different retinal locations and is fairly constant with different stimulus qualities (more and less visual crowding). These findings are contrary both to the conclusions of those investigators who have claimed an advantage for word processing when the stimuli are presented at the fovea (Chaparro & Young, 1993;Ferguson, 1993;Rayner & Bertera, 1979) and to Massaro and Cohen's (1994) supposition that reduced stimulus quality will increase the benefit of word context. These findings also suggest that increased processing time (i.e., longer threshold SDs) does not necessarily lead to an increase in the benefit of word context, as is predicted by McClelland and Rumelhart's (1981;Rumelhart & McClelland, 1982) interactive activation model of letter processing.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 56%

“…The data reported here suggest that this is true regardless of retinal location (fovea or periphery) or the degree of visual crowding. No difference in the benefit of word context between the fovea and the periphery is inconsistent with other reports (Chaparro & Young, 1993;Ferguson, 1993;Rayner & Bertera, 1979). However, none of those studies compensated for the reduced resolution of the retinal periphery by increasing letter size.…”

Section: Finecontrasting

confidence: 56%

“…It has also been argued that words are read more effectively when they are presented at the fovea than when they are presented at the periphery (Chaparro & Young, 1993;Ferguson, 1993;Rayner & Bertera, 1979). For example, Chaparro and Young compared word identification, using just rods and just cones, at 0º, 5º, 10º, 15º, and 20º below fixation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The relative benefit of word context is a constant proportion of letter identification time

Fine

2004

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Letter identification is reduced when the target letter is surrounded by other, flanking letters. This visual crowding is known to be impacted by physical changes to the target and flanks, such as spatial frequency content, polarity, and interletter spacing. There is also evidence that visual crowding is reduced when the flanking letters and the target letter form a word. The research reported here investigated whether these two phenomena are independent of each other or whether the degree of visual crowding impacts the benefit of word context. Stimulus duration thresholds for letters presented alone and for the middle letters of 3-letter words and nonwords were determined for stimuli presented at the fovea and at the periphery. In Experiment 1, the benefit of word context was found to be the same at the fovea, where visual crowding is minimal, and at the periphery, where visual crowding is substantial. In Experiment 2, visual crowding was manipulated by changing the interletter spacing. Here, too, the benefit of word context was fairly constant for the two retinal locations (fovea or periphery), as well as with changes in interletter spacing. These data call into question both the idea that the benefit of word context is greater when stimulus quality is reduced (as is the case with visual crowding) and the idea that words are processed more effectively when they are presented at the fovea.

show abstract