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

Abstract

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.

Are faces processed like words? A diagnostic test for recognition by parts

“…The observers show the same ×1.5 ± 0.1 advantage of familiarity for faces and words, independent of eccentricity. This is consistent with Fine's (2004) finding that the benefit of word context in reducing the stimulus duration required to identify a letter is independent of eccentricity. Figure 5.…”

Relationship between slow visual processing and reading speed in people with macular degeneration

“…It is well known that processing speed of letter recognition measured by either letter identification accuracy with varied exposure durations (Fine, 2004), or reaction time (Babkoff, Genser & Hegge, 1985;Williams & Lefton, 1982) in normal peripheral vision is significantly slower than central vision. Our findings confirm these prior observations by showing that letter recognition in the trigram task is substantially slower in normal peripheral vision (10° inferior field) than in central vision.…”

“…To the extent that crowding was a factor in our trigram letter-recognition task, which we doubt (see the next paragraph), prolonged stimulus exposures might have played a role in reducing the effect of crowding. Fine (2004) examined the relation between inter-letter spacing and stimulus exposure duration on letter recognition in normal peripheral vision (10° right or left of the fovea). Her results showed that the impact of crowding on letter recognition in peripheral vision decreased with longer stimulus exposure.…”

Focusing and orienting spatial attention differently modulate crowding in central and peripheral vision

“…Most studies on this topic investigate the crowding phenomenon, and how it can be modulated by attention, while focusing only on the periphery of the visual field. As mentioned before, crowding is more pronounced in peripheral vision (Fine, 2004;Pelli et al, 2004), whereas the critical distances in fovea are typically small, covering only a few minutes of arc, close to the acuity threshold (Latham & Whitaker, 1996;Siderov, Waugh, & Bedell, 2013;Coates & Levi, 2014). Thus, given the limited extent of the integration fields in central vision, both crowding and attentional effects are less pronounced and harder to detect compared to those in peripheral locations.…”