Serial position functions for letter identification at brief and extended exposure durations

Estes, W. K.; Allmeyer, David H.; Reder, Stephen

doi:10.3758/bf03199379

Cited by 175 publications

(195 citation statements)

References 26 publications

(19 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

174

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This suggestion is consistent with the results of a number of studies in the vision literature that suggest that information used to identify a stimulus can become separated from information about the location of the stimulus (Estes, Allmeyer, & Reder, 1976;Mozer, 1989;Treisman & Gelade, 1980). What is surprising, perhaps, is that we might have expected the amount of spatial uncertainty to decrease as the physical distance between the stimuli was increased.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Perceptual processing of adjacent and nonadjacent tactile nontargets

Evans

Craig

Rinker

1992

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has shown that subjects appear unable to restrict processing to a single finger and ignore a stimulus presented to an adjacent finger. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that, at least for moving stimuli, an adjacent nontarget is fully processed to the level of incipient response activation, The present study replicated and expanded upon these original findings. The results of Experiment 1 showed that an equally large response-competition effect occurred when the nontarget was presented to adjacent and nonadjacent fingers (on the same hand). The results of Experiment 2 showed that the effects observed in Experiment 1 (and in previous studies) were also obtained with stationary stimuli. Although small, there was some indication in the results of Experiment 2 that interference may dissipate more rapidly with distance with stationary stimuli. An additional finding was that interference effects were observed in both experiments with temporal separations between the target and nontarget of up to 100 msec. In Experiment 3, target and nontarget stimuli were presented to opposite hands. Although reduced, interference was still evident with target and nontarget stimuli presented to opposite hands. Varying the physical distance between hands did not produce any change in the amount of interference. The results suggest that the focus of attention on the skin extends nearly undiminished across the fingers of one hand and is not dependent upon the physical distance between sites of stimulation. 571A recent study by Evans and Craig (1991) indicated that subjects have difficulty focusing their attention on one finger and ignoring stimulation at an adjacent site. In this study, subjects were instructed to focus their attention on the left index fmger and to identify the direction of movement of the stimulus presented to that finger. A second stimulus, also moving, was presented to the middle finger, adjacent to the index finger. The stimuli moved in the same direction or in opposite directions. We reasoned that if subjects could restrict their attention to the target location, the presence of the nontarget would produce little, if any, interference. If, however, subjects are unable to restrict their attention to a single finger on one hand, then the direction of movement of the adjacent nontarget might interfere with target performance in a systematic fashion. Specifically, target performance might be interfered with when the direction of movement of the nontarget was opposite to that of the target. The results showed that when the target and nontarget moved in opposite directions, accuracy was reduced and response latencies (correct trials) This research was supported by Grant DC-00095 from the National Institutesof Health and was conducted while the first author was a visiting scholar in the Institute for the Study of Human Capabilities at Indiana University. The authors thank Roger P. Rhodes for his assistance in conducting these experiments. Reprint requests should be addressed to P. M. Evans, Department o...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Perceptual processing of adjacent and nonadjacent tactile nontargets

Evans

Craig

Rinker

1992

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Th e critical fi nding from Experiment 2 was a symmetric drop-off in average isolated lett er visibility as the initial fi xation position moved from the center of the stimulus to the periphery. Th is experiment replicated the well-known distance-from-fi xation eff ects for isolated Latin lett er identifi cation (e.g., Estes et al, 1976;Nazir, Deutsch, Grainger, & Frost, 2000;Nazir et al, 1992). Recognition performance was mostly a function of distance from fi xation.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

“…Kajii and Osaka (2000) measured identifi cation of lett ers embedded in digits, but once again, the entire string was presented to the left or right of a central fi xation point (in their horizontal display condition). Finally, traditional studies of lett er-in-string visibility (e.g., Estes, Allmeyer, & Reder, 1976) used only central fi xations. However, Stevens and Grainger (2003) provided a complete visibility matrix across fi xation positions and lett er-in-string positions for Latin lett ers.…”

Section: Th E Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Letter Visibility and the Optimal Viewing Position Effect of Isolated Connected and Un-Connected Letters in Arabic

Ganayim¹

2015

Psychology of Language and Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Th e present study provides a further exploration of the role of Arabic lett er visibility as a possible cause of the Optimal Viewing Position (OVP) eff ect. We used isolated connected and un-connected Arabic lett ers of diff erent shapes (basic, initial, medial, fi nal) placed at the center of fi xation (Experiment 1) and at various possible positions in isolated presentation (Experiment 2). In order to investigate whether performance in the visual identifi cation task is modulated by lett er type, we presented each of the isolated connected and un-connected lett er targets in each of the eleven stimulus positions across the array to produce a mean RT (ms) for each of the lett er types. Using the initial fi xation paradigm enabled us to compare reaction times with correctly identifi ed lett er targets appearing in the diff erent possible positions. Th e fi ndings of the present experiments demonstrated that visual lett er recognition is infl uenced by: (i) the isolated lett ers' type (connected, un-connected), as connected lett ers are easier to recognize than un-connected lett ers; (ii) isolated lett ers' shape (basic, initial, medial, fi nal), as medial and fi nal are harder to recognize than basic and initial lett er shapes; (iii) visual fi eld, as reading rates were longer for lett er stimuli that were presented in LVF compared to RVF; and (iv) eccentricity, as lett er reading rates were correlated with their eccentric placement.

show abstract

“…exterior letters is coded in a more stable fashion than the positions of interior letters (e.g., Estes, Allmeyer, & Reder, 1976;Mewhort, Marchetti, & Campbell, 1981). However, although both of the exterior letters of a word may enjoy some priority over interior letters, our results suggest that it is the initial letter that is especially important.…”

Section: Why Are An and Dn Interference Effects Not Observed For Finamentioning

confidence: 51%

Re(de)fining the orthographic neighborhood: The role of addition and deletion neighbors in lexical decision and reading.

Davis¹,

Perea²,

Acha³

2009

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The influence of addition and deletion neighbors on visual word identification was investigated in four experiments. Experiments 1 and 2 used Spanish stimuli. In Experiment 1, lexical decision latencies were slower and less accurate for words and nonwords with higher-frequency deletion neighbors (e.g., jugar in juzgar), relative to control stimuli. Experiment 2 showed a similar interference effect for words and nonwords with higher-frequency addition neighbors (e.g., conejo, which has the addition neighbor consejo), relative to control stimuli. Experiment 3 replicated this addition neighbor interference effect in a lexical decision experiment with English stimuli. Across all three experiments, interference effects were always evident for addition/deletion neighbors with word-outer overlap, usually present for those with word-initial overlap, but never present for those with word-final overlap. Experiment 4 replicated the addition/deletion neighbor inhibitory effects in a Spanish sentence reading task in which the participants' eye movements were monitored. These findings suggest that conventional orthographic neighborhood metrics should be redefined. In addition to its methodological implications, this conclusion has significant theoretical implications for input coding schemes and the mechanisms underlying word recognition. Keywords: visual word recognition, lexical inhibition, neighborhood effects, orthographic input coding, SOLAR modelIn the past decade, cracking the orthographic code has become a key question for researchers in visual word recognition and reading (see Grainger, 2008, for a recent review). The origins of this quest can be traced 3 decades ago, when Coltheart, Davelaar, Jonasson, and Besner (1977) reported an experiment that has come to be considered a classic study in the field of visual word identification. To investigate lexical access procedures, Coltheart and colleagues manipulated an orthographic similarity metric that they labeled "N". The N metric had previously been suggested by Landauer and Streeter (1973) as a measure of the number of close "neighbors" of a stimulus, and was computed by counting the number of words that can be created by changing a single letter of the stimulus. For example, N ϭ 10 for the word river (which has an orthographic neighborhood that includes the words diver, liver, rover, rider, and rivet), whereas N ϭ 1 for the word drive, as only a single word (drove) can be formed by substituting a single letter. In a lexical decision task, Coltheart et al. (1977) found that N had no effect on the latency of "Yes" responses, but that "No" responses were significantly slower to large-N nonwords than to small-N nonwords. This was interpreted as evidence against a serial search model and in favor of a parallel access model like Morton's (1970) logogen model. It was argued that fixating a written word leads to the automatic activation of its neighbors, and that this lexical activation made it harder to reject large-N nonwords than small-N nonwords.In the years since Colth...

show abstract

Serial position functions for letter identification at brief and extended exposure durations

Cited by 175 publications

References 26 publications

Perceptual processing of adjacent and nonadjacent tactile nontargets

Perceptual processing of adjacent and nonadjacent tactile nontargets

Letter Visibility and the Optimal Viewing Position Effect of Isolated Connected and Un-Connected Letters in Arabic

Re(de)fining the orthographic neighborhood: The role of addition and deletion neighbors in lexical decision and reading.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About