Visual constraints in written word recognition: Evidence from the optimal viewing-position effect

Journal of Research in Reading

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 216-228

  Brysbaert, Marc ^a   Nazir, Tatjana ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITÉ LYON 1   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 27744601131     PISSN: 01410423     EISSN: 14679817     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2005.00266.x     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. Aghababian, V. & Nazir, T.A. (2000). Developing normal reading skills: Aspects of the visual processes underlying word recognition. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 76, 123-150.
2. Ben-Boutayab, N. (2004). Interactions des facteurs visuels et lexicaux au cours de la reconnaissance des mots écrits. University of Lyon: Unpublished PhD thesis.
3. Bouma, H. (1970). Interaction effects in parafoveal letter recognition. Nature, 226, 177-178.
4. Brysbaert, M. (1992). Interhemispheric transfer in reading, University of Leuven: Unpublished PhD Thesis.
5. Brysbaert, M. (1994). Interhemispheric transfer and the processing of foveally presented stimuli. Behavioural Brain Research, 64, 151-161.
6. Brysbaert, M. (2004). The importance of interhemispheric transfer for foveal vision: A factor that has been overlooked in theories of visual word recognition and object perception. Brain and Language, 88, 259-267.
7. Brysbaert, M., Drieghe, D. & Vitu, F. (forthcoming). Word skipping: Implications for theories of eye movement control in reading. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Cognitive processes in eye guidance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Brysbaert, M., Grondelaers, S. & Ratinckx, E. (2000). Sentence reading: Do we make use of orthographic cues in homophones? Acta Psychologica, 105, 31-56.
9. Brysbaert, M., Vitu, F. & Schroyens, W. (1996). The right visual field advantage and the optimal viewing position effect: On the relation between foveal and parafoveal word recognition. Neuropsychology, 10, 385-395.
10. Drieghe, D. & Brysbaert, M. (2002). Strategic effects in associative priming with words, homophones, and pseudohomophones. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 951-961.
11. Farid, M. & Grainger, J. (1996). How initial fixation position influences visual word recognition: A comparison of French and Arabic. Brain and Language, 53, 351-368.
12. Grainger, J. & Whitney, C. (2004). Does the huamn mnid raed wrods as a wlohe? Trends in Cognitive Science, 8, 58-59.
13. Harm, M.W. & Seidenberg, M.S. (2004). Computing the meaning of words in reading: Cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes. Psychological Review, 111, 662-720.
14. Inhoff, A.W., Connine, C., Eiter, B., Radach, R. & Heller, D. (2004). Phonological representation of words in working memory during sentence reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 320-325.
15. Kelly, M.L., Jones, M.W., McDonald, S.A. & Shillcock, R.C. (2004). Dyslexies' eye fixations may accommodate to hemispheric desynchronization. Neuroreport, 15, 2629-2632.
16. Knecht, S., Drager, B., Deppe, M., Bobe, L., Lohmann, H., Floel, A., Ringelstein, E.G. & Henningsen, H. (2000). Handedness and hemispheric language dominance in healthy humans. Brain, 123, 2512-2518.
17. Lavidor, M. & Walsh, V. (2004). Magnetic stimulation studies of foveal vision. Brain and Language, 88, 331-338.
18. Leff, A. (2004). A historical review of the representation of the visual field in primary visual cortex with special reference to the neural mechanisms underlying macular sparing. Brain and Language, 88, 268-278.
19. McDonald, S.A. & Shillcock, R.C. (2005). The implications of foveal splitting for saccade planning in reading. Vision Research, 45, 801-820.
20. Monaghan, P., Shillcock, R. & McDonald, S. (2004). Hemispheric asymmetries in the split-fovea model of semantic processing. Brain and Language, 88, 339-354.
21. Nazir, T.A. (2000). Traces of print along the visual pathway. In A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller & D. Pynte (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process. (pp. 3-22). Oxford: Elsevier.
22. Nazir, T.A., Ben-Boutayab, N., Decoppet, N., Deutsch, A. & Frost, R. (2004). Reading habits, perceptual learning, and recognition of printed words. Brain and Language, 88, 294-311.
23. Nazir, T.A. & O'Regan, J.K. (1990). Some results on the translation invariance in the human visual system. Spatial Vision, 3, 81-100.
24. Nazir, T.A., O'Regan, J.K. & Jacobs, A.M. (1991). On words and their letters. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 29, 171-174.
25. O'Regan, J.K. (1981). The convenient viewing position hypothesis. In D.F. Fisher, R.A. Monty & J.W. Senders (Eds.), Eye movements, cognition, and visual perception, (pp. 289-298). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. O'Regan, J.K., Lévy-Schoen, A., Pynte, J. & Brugaillère, B. (1984). Convenient fixation location within isolated words of different length and structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 250-257.
27. Perea, M. & Lupker, S.J. (2004). Can CANISO activate CASINO? Transposed letter similarity effects with nonadjacent letter positions. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 231-246.
28. Pynte, J., Kennedy, A. & Murray, W. (1991). Within-word inspection strategies in continuous reading: Time course of perceptual, lexical and contextual processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 458-470.
29. Schatschneider, D., Fletcher, J.M., Francis, D.J., Carlson, C.D. & Foorman, B.R. (2004). Kindergarten prediction of reading skills: A longitudinal comparative analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 265-282.
30. Shillcock, R., Ellison, T.M. & Monaghan, P. (2000). Eye-fixation behavior, lexical storage, and visual word recognition in a split processing model. Psychological Review, 107, 824-851.
31. Stevens, M. & Grainger, J. (2003). Letter visibility and the viewing position effect in visual word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 133-151.
32. Vitu, F., O'Regan, J.K. & Mittau, M. (1990). Optimal landing position in reading isolated words and continuous text. Perception & Psychophysics, 47, 583-600.
33. Wertheim, T. (1894). Uber die indirekte Sehschärfe. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 7, 172.
34. Whitney, C. (2004). Hemisphere-specific effects in word recognition do not require hemisphere-specific modes of access. Brain and Language, 88, 279-293.