Assessing the Importance of Letter Pairs in Reading - Parafoveal Processing is Not the only View: Reply to Inhoff, Radach, Eiter, and Skelly (2003)

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 29, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 900-903

  Jordan, Timothy R ^a   Thomas, Sharon M ^a   Patching, Geoffrey R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATTENTION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; EYE FIXATION; HUMAN; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PROBLEM SOLVING; READING; RETINA FOVEA; REVIEW; SEMANTICS; VISUAL FIELD;

ATTENTION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; FIXATION, OCULAR; FOVEA CENTRALIS; HUMANS; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PROBLEM SOLVING; READING; SEMANTICS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 0142041449     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.29.5.900     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Balota, D. A., & Rayner, K. (1991). Word recognition processes in foveal and parafoveal vision: The range of influence of lexical variables. In D. Besner & G. W. Humphreys (Eds.), Basic processes in reading (pp. 198-232). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Briihl, D., & Inhoff, A. W. (1995). Integrating information across fixations during reading: The use of orthographic bodies and of exterior letters. Journal of Experimental Psychology; Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 55-67.
3. Carr, T. H., Lehmkuhle, S. W., Kottas, B., Astor-Stetson, E. C., & Arnold, D. (1976). Target position and practice in the identification of letters in varying contexts: A word superiority effect. Perception & Psychophysics, 19, 412-416.
4. Humphreys, G. W., Evett, L. J., & Quinlan, P. T. (1990). Orthographic processing in visual word identification. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 517-560.
5. Inhoff, A. W., & Eiter, B. M. (2003). Knowledge of word length does not constrain word identification. Psychological Research, 67, 1-9.
6. Inhoff, A. W., Radach, R., Eiter, B. M., & Juhasz, B. (in press). Parafoveal processing: Distinct subsystems for spatial and linguistic information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology.
7. Inhoff, A. W., Radach, R., Eiter, B. M., & Skelly, M. (2003). Exterior letters are not privileged in the early stage of visual word recognition during reading: Comment on Jordan, Thomas, Patching, and Scott- Brown (2003). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 894-899.
8. Jordan, T. R. (1990). Presenting words without interior letters: Superiority over single letters and the influence of postmask boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 893-909.
9. Jordan, T. R. (1995). Perceiving exterior letters of words: Differential influences of letter-fragment and non-letter fragment masks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 512-530.
10. Jordan, T. R., & Bevan, K. M. (1996). Position-specific masking and the word-letter phenomenon: Reexamining the evidence from the Reicher- Wheeler paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology; Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1416-1433.
11. Jordan, T. R., & Patching, G. R. (in press). Perceptual interactions between bilaterally presented words: What you get is often not what you see. Neuropsychology.
12. Jordan, T. R., Patching, G. R., & Milner, A. D. (2000). Lateralized word recognition: Assessing the role of hemispheric specialization, modes of lexical access, and perceptual asymmetry. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1192-1208.
13. Jordan, T. R., Patching, G. R., & Thomas, S. M. (2003a). Assessing the role of hemispheric specialization, serial-position processing and retinal eccentricity in lateralized word perception. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 49-71.
14. Jordan, T. R., Patching, G. R., & Thomas, S. M. (2003b). Asymmetries and eccentricities in studies of lateralized word recognition: A response to Nazir. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 81-89.
15. Jordan, T. R., & Thomas, S. M. (2002). In search of perceptual influences of sentence context on word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology; Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 33-45.
16. Jordan, T. R., Thomas, S. M., Patching, G. R., & Scott-Brown, K. C. (2003). Assessing the importance of letter pairs in initial, exterior, and interior positions in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology; Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 883-893.
17. Mewhort, D. J. K., & Campbell, A. J. (1978). Processing spatial information and the selective masking effect. Perception & Psychophysics, 24, 93-101.
18. Townsend, V. M. (1973). Loss of spatial and identity information following a tachistoscopic exposure. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 98, 113-118.
19. Van der Velde, F., van der Heijden, A. H. C., & Schreuder, R. (1989). Context-dependent migrations in visual word perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 133-141.