Not all visual features are created equal: Early processing in letter and word recognition

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 67-73

  Lanthier, Sophie N ^a   Risko, Evan F ^a   Stolz, Jennifer A ^a   Besner, Derek ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; HUMAN; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; REACTION TIME; READING; RECEPTIVE FIELD; SEMANTICS; VISION;

DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; FIELD DEPENDENCE-INDEPENDENCE; HUMANS; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PERCEPTUAL CLOSURE; REACTION TIME; READING; SEMANTICS;

EID: 62649085728     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: 15315320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/PBR.16.1.67     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147.
2. Binford, T. O. (1981). Inferring surfaces from images. Artificial Intelligence, 17, 205-244.
3. Caramazza, A., & Hillis, A. E. (1990). Levels of representation, coordinate frames, and unilateral neglect. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 7, 391-445.
4. Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108, 204-256.
5. Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268-294.
6. Emrich, S. M., Ruppel, J. D. N., & Ferber, S. (2008). The role of elaboration in the persistence of awareness for degraded objects. Con sciousness & Cognition, 17, 319-329.
7. Fiset, D., Blais, C., Éthier-Majcher, C., Arguin, M., Bub, D. N., & Gosselin, F. (2008). Features for uppercase and lowercase letter identification. Psychological Science, 19, 1160-1167.
8. Gervais, M. J., Harvey, L. O., Jr., & Roberts, J. O. (1984). Identification confusions among letters of the alphabet. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 10, 655-666.
9. Gibson, E. J. (1965). Learning to read. Annals of Dyslexia, 15, 32-47.
10. Gibson, E. J. (1969). Principles of perceptual learning and development. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
11. Gibson, E. J., Gibson, J. J., Pick, A. D., & Osser, H. (1962). A developmental study of the discrimination of letter-like forms. Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology, 55, 897-906.
12. Hummel, J. E., & Biederman, I. (1992). Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. Psychological Review, 99, 480-517.
13. Jacobs, A. M., & Grainger, J. (1991). Automatic letter priming in an alphabetic decision task. Perception & Psychophysics, 49, 43-52.
14. Kučera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present- day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
15. Massaro, D. W., & Cowan, N. (1993). Information processing models: Microscopes of the mind. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 383-425.
16. Massaro, D. W., & Hary, J. M. (1986). Addressing issues in letter recognition. Psychological Research, 48, 123-132.
17. Masson, M. E. J., & Loftus, G. R. (2003). Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57, 203-220.
18. McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375-407.
19. Naus, M. J., & Shillman, R. J. (1976). Why a Y is not a V: A new look at the distinctive features of letters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 2, 394-400.
20. Oden, G. C. (1979). A fuzzy logical model of letter identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 5, 336-352.
21. Oden, G. C., & Massaro, D. W. (1978). Integration of featural information in speech perception. Psychological Review, 85, 172-191.
22. Paap, K. R., Newsome, S. L., McDonald, J. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1982). An activation-verification model for letter and word recognition: The word-superiority effect. Psychological Review, 89, 573-594.
23. Pelli, D. G., Burns, C. W., Farell, B., & Moore-Page, D. C. (2006). Feature detection and letter identification. Vision Research, 46, 4646- 4674.
24. Perry, C., Ziegler, J. C., & Zorzi, M. (2007). Nested incremental modeling in the development of computational theories: The CDP+ model of reading aloud. Psychological Review, 114, 273-315.
25. Petit, J. P., & Grainger, J. (2002). Masked partial priming of letter perception. Visual Cognition, 9, 337-353.
26. Petit, J. P., Midgley, K. J., Holcomb, P. J., & Grainger, J. (2006). On the time course of letter perception: A masked priming ERP investigation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 674-681.
27. Rayner, K., & Posnansky, C. (1978). Stages of processing in word identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 107, 64-80.
28. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime reference guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools.
29. Schomaker, L., & Segers, E. (1999). Finding features used in the human reading of cursive handwriting. International Journal on Document Analysis & Recognition, 2, 13-18.
30. Selfridge, O. G., & Neisser, U. (1960). Pattern recognition by machine. Scientific American, 203, 60-68.
31. Snodgrass, J. G., & Feenan, K. (1990). Priming effects in picture fragment completion: Support for the perceptual closure hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 276-296.
32. Snodgrass, J. G., & Kinjo, H. (1998). On the generality of the perceptual closure effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 645-658.
33. Townsend, J. T. (1971). Theoretical analysis of an alphabet confusion matrix. Perception & Psychophysics, 9, 40-50.
34. Townsend, J. T., Hu, G. G., & Kadlec, H. (1988). Feature sensitivity, bias, and interdependencies as a function of energy and payoffs. Perception & Psychophysics, 43, 575-591.
35. Van Selst, M., & Jolicœur, P. (1994). A solution to the effect of sample size on outlier elimination. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A, 631-650.
36. Yap, M. J., Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., & Watson, J. M. (2006). Single- versus dual-process models of lexical decision performance: In- sights from response time distributional analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 32, 1324-1344.