Re-evaluating split-fovea processing in word recognition: Effects of fixation location within words

Cortex

Volumn 46, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 298-309

  Jordan, Timothy R ^a   Paterson, Kevin B ^a   Kurtev, Stoyan ^a   Xu, Mengyun ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Hemispheric asymmetry; Laterality; Split fovea; Visual fields; Word recognition

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EVALUATION RESEARCH; EYE TRACKING; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; PATTERN RECOGNITION; RETINA FOVEA; SPATIAL ORIENTATION; STIMULUS RESPONSE; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL STIMULATION; WORD RECOGNITION;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; EYE MOVEMENT MEASUREMENTS; FIXATION, OCULAR; FOVEA CENTRALIS; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PHOTIC STIMULATION; REACTION TIME; READING; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); VOCABULARY;

EID: 75949113250     PISSN: 00109452     EISSN: 00109452     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2009.01.008     Document Type: Article

References (94)

1. Andrews S. Frequency and neighborhood effects on lexical access: lexical similarity or orthographic redundancy?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1992, 18:234-254.
2. Anliker J. Eye movements on-line measurement, analysis, and control. Eye Movements and Psychological Processes 1977, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale, NJ. R.A. Monty, J.W. Senders (Eds.).
3. Annett M. A classification of hand preference by association analysis. British Journal of Psychology 1970, 61:303-321.
4. Antos S.J. Processing facilitation in a lexical decision task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1979, 5:527-545.
5. Auclair L., Chokron S. Is the optimal viewing position in reading influenced by familiarity of the letter string?. Brain and Cognition 2001, 46:20-24.
6. Baayen R.H., Piepenbrock R., Gulikers L. The CELEX Lexical Database (Release 2) [CD-ROM] 1995, Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
7. Batt V., Underwood G., Bryden M.P. Inspecting asymmetric presentations of words differing in informational and morphemic structure. Brain and Language 1995, 49:202-223.
8. Bentin S., McCarthy G., Wood C.C. Event-related potential, lexical decision and semantic priming. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 1985, 60:343-355.
9. Bouma H. Visual interference in the parafoveal recognition of the initial and final letters of words. Vision Research 1973, 13:767-782.
10. Brandt T., Stephan T., Bense S., Yousry T.A., Dieterich M. Hemifield visual motion stimulation: An example of interhemispheric crosstalk. NeuroReport 2000, 11:2803-2809.
11. Brysbaert M. Interhemispheric transfer and the processing of foveally presented stimuli. Behavioural Brain Research 1994, 64:151-161.
12. Brysbaert M. 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 2004, 88:259-267.
13. Brysbaert M., Vitu F., Schroyens W. The right visual field advantage and the optimal viewing position effect: On the relation between foveal and parafoveal word recognition. Neuropsychology 1996, 10:385-395.
14. Bunt A.H., Minckler D.S. Foveal sparing: New anatomical evidence for bilateral representation of the central retina. Archives of Ophthalmology 1977, 95:1445-1447.
15. Clark H.H. The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1973, 12:335-359.
16. Coltheart M., Davelaar E., Jonasson J.T., Besner D. Access to the internal lexicon. Attention and Performance 1977, vol. 6:535-555. Academic Press, New York. S. Dornic (Ed.).
17. Crovitz H.F., Zener K. A group-test for assessing hand- and eye-dominance. American Journal of Psychology 1962, 75:271-276.
18. Dehaene S., Cohen L., Sigman M., Vinckier F. The neural code for written words: A proposal. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2005, 9:335-341.
19. Ellis A.W. Length, formats, neighbours, hemispheres, and the processing of words presented laterally or at fixation. Brain and Language 2004, 88:355-366.
20. Ellis A.W., Young A., Anderson C. Modes of word recognition in the left and right cerebral hemispheres. Brain and Language 1988, 35:254-273.
21. Eriksen B.A., Eriksen C.W. Importance of being first - tachistoscopic study of contribution of each letter to recognition of 4-letter words. Perception and Psychophysics 1974, 15:66-72.
22. Farid M., Grainger J. How initial fixation position influences visual word recognition: A comparison of French and Arabic. Brain and Language 1996, 53:351-368.
23. Fendrich R., Wessinger C.M., Gazzaniga M.S. Nasotemporal overlap at the retinal veridical meridian: Investigations with a callosotomy patient. Neuropsychologia 1996, 34:637-646.
24. Findlay J.M., Kapoula Z. Scrutinization, spatial attention, and the spatial programming of saccadic eye movements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1992, 45A:633-647.
25. Fowler C.A., Wolford G., Slade R., Tassinary L. Lexical access with and without awareness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1981, 110:341-362.
26. Gazzaniga M.S. Cerebral specialization and interhemispheric communication: Does the corpus callosum enable the human condition?. Brain 2000, 123:1293-1326.
27. Gronwall D.M., Sampson H. Ocular dominance: A test of two hypotheses. British Journal of Psychology 1971, 62:175-185.
28. Hotelling H. Relations between two sets of variates. Biometrika 1936, 28:321-377.
29. Hunter Z., Brysbaert M., Knecht S. Foveal word reading requires interhemispheric communication. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2007, 19:1373-1387.
30. Jones B., Santi A. Lateral asymmetries in visual perception with and without eye movements. Cortex 1978, 14:164-168.
31. Jordan T.R. Presenting words without interior letters: Superiority over single letters and influence of postmask boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1990, 16:893-909.
32. Jordan T.R. Perceiving exterior letters of words: Differential influences of letter fragment and non-letter-fragment masks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1995, 21:512-530.
33. Jordan T.R., Patching G.R. Assessing effects of fixation demands on perception of lateralized words: A visual window technique for studying hemispheric asymmetry. Neuropsychologia 2006, 44:686-692.
34. Jordan T.R., Patching G.R., Milner A.D. Central fixations are inadequately controlled by instructions alone: Implications for studying cerebral asymmetry. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1998, 51A:371-391.
35. Jordan T.R., Patching G.R., Milner A.D. Lateralized word recognition: Assessing the role of hemispheric specialization, modes of lexical access and perceptual asymmetry. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2000, 26:1192-1208.
36. Jordan T.R., Patching G.R., Thomas S.M. Assessing the role of hemispheric specialization, serial-position processing and retinal eccentricity in lateralized word perception. Cognitive Neuropsychology 2003, 20:49-71.
37. Jordan T.R., Patching G.R., Thomas S.M. Asymmetries and eccentricities in studies of lateralized word recognition: A response to Nazir. Cognitive Neuropsychology 2003, 20:81-89.
38. Jordan T.R., Paterson K.B. Re-evaluating split-fovea processing in word recognition: A critical assessment of recent research. Neuropsychologia 2009.
39. Jordan T.R., Paterson K.B., Kurtev S. Re-evaluating split-fovea processing in word recognition: Hemispheric dominance, retinal location, and the word-nonword effect. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience 2009.
40. Jordan T.R., Paterson K.B., Stachurski M. Re-evaluating split-fovea processing in word recognition: Effects of retinal eccentricity on hemispheric dominance. Neuropsychology 2008, 22:738-745.
41. Jordan T.R., Paterson K.B., Stachurski M. Re-evaluating split-fovea processing in word recognition: Effects of word length. Cortex 2009, 45:495-505.
42. Jordan TR, Paterson KB, Stachurski M, Kurtev S, and Xu M. Evaluating the influence of fixation location on perception of centrally-presented words: Some researchers (and all participants) may be missing the point. In: Paper presented at Joint Meeting of the Experimental Psychology Society and Psychonomic Society, 4-7 July, Edinburgh, 2007.
43. Jordan T.R., Paterson K.B., Kurtev S., Xu M. Re-evaluating split-fovea processing in word recognition: Effects of word length during monocular viewing. Cortex 2010, 46:100-105.
44. Jordan T.R., Paterson K.B., Kurtev S., Xu M. Do fixation cues ensure fixation accuracy in split-fovea studies of word recognition?. Neuropsychologia 2009.
45. Jordan T.R., Thomas S.M., Patching G.R. Assessing the importance of letter pairs in initial, exterior, and interior positions in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 2003, 29:883-893.
46. Jordan T.R., Thomas S.M., Patching G.R., Scott-Brown K.C. Assessing the importance of letter pairs in reading - parafoveal processing is not the only view. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 2003, 29:900-903.
47. Lavidor M., Bailey P.J. Dissociations between serial position and number of letters effects in lateralized visual word recognition. Journal of Research in Reading 2005, 28:258-273.
48. Lavidor M., Ellis A.W., Shillcock R., Bland T. Evaluating a split processing model of visual word recognition: Effects of word length. Cognitive Brain Research 2001, 12:265-272.
49. Lavidor M., Hayes A., Shillcock R., Ellis A.W. Evaluating a split processing model of visual word recognition: Effects of orthographic neighborhood size. Brain and Language 2004, 88:312-320.
50. Lavidor M., Walsh V. The nature of foveal representation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2004, 5:729-735.
51. Lavidor M., Whitney C. Word length effects in Hebrew. Cognitive Brain Research 2005, 24:127-132.
52. Leff A.P. 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 2004, 88:268-278.
53. Leventhal A.G., Ault S.J., Vitek D.J. The nasotemporal division in primate retina: The neural bases of macular sparing and splitting. Science 1988, 240:66-67.
54. Lindell A.K., Nicholls M.E.R. Cortical representation of the fovea: Implications for visual half-field research. Cortex 2003, 39:111-117.
55. Liversedge S.P., Rayner K., White S.J., Findlay J.M., McSorley W. Binocular co-ordination of the eyes during reading. Current Biology 2006, 16:1726-1729.
56. Loftus G.R., Masson M.E.J. Using confidence intervals in within-subjects designs. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 1994, 1:476-490.
57. Martin C.D., Nazir T., Thierry G., Paulignan Y., Démonet J.F. Perceptual and lexical effects in letter identification: An event-related potential study of the word superiority effect. Brain Research 2006, 1098:153-160.
58. Martin C.D., Thierry G., Démonet J.F., Roberts M., Nazir T. ERP evidence for the split fovea theory. Brain Research 2007, 1185:212-220.
59. McDonald S.A., Carpenter R.H.S., Shillcock R.C. An anatomically constrained, stochastic model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review 2005, 112:814-840.
60. McDonald S.A., Shillcock R.C. The implications of foveal splitting for saccade planning in reading. Vision Research 2005, 45:801-820.
61. Miles W.R. Ocular dominance in human adults. Journal of General Psychology 1930, 3:412-430.
62. Nazir T.A., Heller D., Sussmann C. Letter visibility and word recognition - the optimal viewing position in printed words. Perception and Psychophysics 1992, 52:315-328.
63. Nazir T.A., Jacobs A.M., O'Regan J.K. Letter legibility and visual word recognition. Memory and Cognition 1998, 26:810-821.
64. Nazir T.A., O'Regan J.K., Jacobs A.M. On words and their letters. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 1991, 29:171-174.
65. Olzak L.A., Thomas L.P. Seeing spatial patterns. Handbook of Perception and Human Performance 1986, vol. II:7.1-7.56. Wiley, New York. K.R. Boff, L. Kaufman, J.P. Thomas (Eds.).
66. O'Regan J.K. The convenient viewing position hypothesis. Eye Movements, Cognition, and Visual Perception 1981, 289-298. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. D.F. Fisher, R.A. Monty, J.W. Senders (Eds.).
67. O'Regan J.K., Jacobs A.M. Optimal viewing position effect in word recognition: A challenge to current theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1992, 18:185-197.
68. O'Regan J.K., Lévy-Schoen A., Pynte J., Brugaillère B. Convenient fixation location within isolated words of different length and structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1984, 10:250-257.
69. Patching G.R., Jordan T.R. Increasing the benefits of eye-tracking devices in divided visual field studies of cerebral asymmetry. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 1998, 30:643-650.
70. Patching G.R., Jordan T.R. Assessing the role of different spatial frequencies in word perception by good and poor readers. Memory and Cognition 2005, 33:961-971.
71. Patching G.R., Jordan T.R. Spatial frequency sensitivity differences between adults of good and poor reading ability. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2005, 46:2219-2224.
72. Porac C., Coren S. The dominant eye. Psychological Bulletin 1976, 83:880-897.
73. Porta G.della De refractione. Optices parte: libri novem 1593, Ex officina horatii salviani, apud Jo. Jacobum Carlinum, and Anotnium Pacem, Napoli.
74. Rayner K., Pollatsek A. The Psychology of Reading 1989, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
75. Rayner K., Well A.D., Pollatsek A. Asymmetry of the effective visual field in reading. Perception and Psychophysics 1980, 27:537-544.
76. Reinhard J., Trauzettel-Klosinski S. Nasotemporal overlap of retinal ganglion cells in humans: A functional study. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2003, 4:1568-1572.
77. Roth H.L., Lora A.N., Heilman K.M. Effects of monocular viewing and eye dominance on spatial attention. Brain 2002, 125:2023-2035.
78. Shillcock R.C., McDonald S.A. Hemispheric division of labour in reading. Journal of Research in Reading 2005, 28:244-257.
79. Shillcock R., Ellison T.M., Monaghan P. Eye-fixation behavior, lexical storage, and visual word recognition in a split processing model. Psychological Review 2000, 107:824-851.
80. Skarratt P.A., Lavidor M. Magnetic stimulation of the left visual cortex impairs expert word recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2006, 18:1749-1758.
81. Stevens M., Grainger J. Letter visibility and the viewing position effect in visual word recognition. Perception and Psychophysics 2003, 65:133-151.
82. Stone J. The naso-temporal division of the cat's retina. Journal of Comparative Neurology 1966, 126:585-600.
83. Stone J., Leicester J., Sherman S.M. The naso-temporal division of the monkey's retina. Journal of Comparative Neurology 1973, 150:333-348.
84. Sugishita M., Hamilton C.R., Sakuma I., Hemmi I. Hemispheric representations of the central retina of commissurotomized subjects. Neuropsychologia 1994, 32:399-415.
85. Tabachnick B.G., Fidell L.S. Using Multivariate Statistics 1996, Harper Collins, New York. 3rd ed.
86. Terrace H.S. The effects of retinal locus and attention on the perception of words. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1959, 58:382-385.
87. Tootell R.B., Mendola J.D., Hadjikhani N.K., Liu A.K., Dale A.M. The representation of the ipsilateral visual field in human cerebral cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 1998, 95:818-824.
88. Trauzettel-Klosinski S., Reinhard J. The vertical field border in hemianopia and its significance for fixation and reading. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 1998, 39:2177-2186.
89. Van der Haegen L., Brysbaert M., Davis C.J. How does interhemispheric communication in visual word recognition work? Deciding between early and late integration accounts of the split fovea theory. Brain and Language 2009.
90. Vitu F., O'Regan J.K., Mittau M. Optimal landing position in reading isolated words and continuous text. Perception and Psychophysics 1990, 47:583-600.
91. Whitney C. How the brain encodes the order of letters in a printed word: the SERIOL model and selective literature review. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2001, 8:221-243.
92. Whitney C. Hemisphere-specific effects in word recognition do not require hemisphere-specific modes of access. Brain and Language 2004, 88:279-293.
93. Whitney C., Lavidor M. Why word length only matters in the left visual field. Neuropsychologia 2004, 42:1680-1688.
94. Young A.W., Ellis A.W. Different methods of lexical access for words presented in the left and right visual hemifields. Brain and Language 1985, 24:326-358.