Embedded words in visual word recognition: Does the left hemisphere see the rain in brain?

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 36, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 1256-1266

  McCormick, Samantha F ^a   Davis, Colin J ^a   Brysbaert, Marc ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Embedded word recognition; Semantic categorization; Split fovea

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; BRAIN; CONCEPT FORMATION; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; RETINA FOVEA; VISION; VISUAL FIELD;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BRAIN; CONCEPT FORMATION; FOVEA CENTRALIS; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PHOTIC STIMULATION; VISION, OCULAR; VISUAL FIELDS; VISUAL PERCEPTION; VOCABULARY;

EID: 77956517274     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0020224     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Baayen R.H., Piepenbrock R., van Rijn H. The CELEX lexical database [CD-ROM] 1993, Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
2. Bowers J.S., Davis C.J., Hanley D.A. Automatic semantic activation of embedded words: Is there a "hat" in "that" ?. Journal of Memory and Language 2005, 52:131-143. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.09.003.
3. Brysbaert M. Interhemispheric transfer and the processing of foveally presented stimuli. Behavioural Brain Research 1994, 64:151-161. doi: 10.1016/0166-4328(94)90127-9.
4. 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. doi: 10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00279-7.
5. Brysbaert M., Nazir T. Visual constraints on written word recognition: Evidence from the optimal viewing position effect. Journal of Research in Reading 2005, 28:216-228. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2005.00266.x.
6. 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. doi: 10.1037/0894-4105.10.3.385.
7. Coltheart M., Rastle K., Perry C., Langdon R., Ziegler J. DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review 2001, 108:204-256. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.108.1.204.
8. Davis, C. J. (1999). The self-organising lexical acquisition and recognition (SOLAR) model of visual word recognition (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
9. Davis C.J. N-Watch: A program for deriving neighborhood size and other psycholinguistic statistics. Behavior Research Methods 2005, 37:65-70.
10. Davis, C. J. (in press). The spatial coding model of visual word identification. Psychological Review.
11. Davis C.J., Perea M., Acha J. Re(de)fining the orthographic neighborhood: The role of addition and deletion neighbors in lexical decision and reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2009, 35:1550-1570. doi: 10.1037/a0014253.
12. Davis C.J., Taft M. More words in the neighborhood: Interference in lexical decision due to deletion neighbors. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2005, 12:904-910.
13. Ellis A.W., Brysbaert M. The split fovea theory and the role of the two cerebral hemispheres in reading: A review of the evidence. Neuropsychologia 2010, 48:353-365. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.08.021.
14. Forster K.I., Forster J.C. A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 2003, 35:116-124.
15. Grainger J., Jacobs A.M. Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model. Psychological Review 1996, 103:518-565. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.103.3.518.
16. Grainger J., Whitney C. Does the huamn mnid raed wrods as a wlohe?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2004, 8:58-59. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2003.11.006.
17. Hunter Z.R., Brysbaert M. Theoretical analysis of interhemispheric transfer costs in visual word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes 2008, 23:165-182. doi: 10.1080/01690960701579813.
18. Hunter Z.R., Brysbaert M. Visual half-field experiments are a good measure of cerebral language dominance if used properly: Evidence from fMR1. Neuropsychologia 2008, 46:316-325. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.07.007.
19. Hunter Z.R., Brysbaert M., Knecht S. Foveal word reading requires interhemispheric communication. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2007, 19:1373-1387. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.8.1373.
20. Nation K., Cocksey J. Beginning readers activate semantics from sub-word orthography. Cognition 2009, 110:273-278. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.11.004.
21. 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. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.18.1.185.
22. Perea M., Lupker S.J. Does jugde activate COURT? Transposed-letter similarity effects in masked associative priming. Memory & Cognition 2003, 31:829-841.
23. Perea M., Lupker S.J. Can CANISO activate CASINO? Transposed-letter similarity effects with nonadjacent letter positions. Journal of Memory and Language 2004, 51:231-246. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.005.
24. Rayner K. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin 1998, 124:372-422. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372.
25. 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. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.107.4.824.
26. Shillcock R., McDonald S., Monaghan P. Reading and the split fovea. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2003, 26:503. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X03480102.
27. 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, 108:112-121. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2008.06.005.
28. Van der Haegen L., Drieghe D., Brysbaert M. The split-fovea theory and the Leicester critique: What do the data say?. Neuropsychologia 2010, 48:96-106. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.08.014.
29. Walker R., McSorley E. The parallel programming of voluntary and reflexive saccades. Vision Research 2006, 46:2082-2093. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2005.12.009.
30. White S.J., Johnson R.L., Liversedge S.P., Rayner K. Eye movements when reading transposed text: The importance of word-beginning letters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2008, 34:1261-1276. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.34.5.1261.
31. Whitney C. How the brain encodes the order of letters in a printed word: The SERIOL model and selective literature review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2001, 8:221-243.