Re-examining format distortion and orthographic neighbourhood size effects in the left, central and right visual fields

Journal of Research in Reading

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 356-373

  Mano, Quintino R ^a   Patrick, Cory J ^a   Andresen, Elizabeth N ^a   Capizzi, Kyle ^a   Biagioli, Raschel ^a   Osmon, David C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78651504902     PISSN: 01410423     EISSN: 14679817     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01420.x     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Andrews, S. (1989). Frequency and neighborhood effects on lexical access: Activation or search? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15 (5), 802-814.
2. Andrews, S. (1997). The effect of orthographic similarity on lexical retrieval: Resolving neighborhood conflicts. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 4, 439-461.
3. Besner, D. (1989). On the role of outline shape and word-specific visual pattern in the identification of function words: NONE. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 41 (1), 91-105.
4. Besner, D. & Johnston, J.C. (1989). Reading and the mental lexicon: On the interaction of visual, orthographic, phonological, and lexical information. In W. Marslen-Wilson (Ed.), Lexical processes and representation. (pp. 291-316). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. Besner, D. & McCann, R.S. (1987). Word frequency and pattern distortion in visual word identification and production: An examination of four classes of models. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII. (pp. 201-219). London: Erlbaum.
6. Binder, J.R., McKiernan, K.A., Parsons, M.E., Westbury, C.F., Possing, E.T., Kaufman, J.N. et al. (2003). Neural correlates of lexical access during visual word recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15 (3), 372-393.
7. Binder, J.R., Medler, D.A., Westbury, C.F., Liebenthal, E. & Buchanan, L. (2006). Tuning of the human left fusiform gyrus to sublexical orthographic structure. Neuroimage, 33 (2), 739-748.
8. 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.
9. Cohen, L., Lehéricy, S.P., Chochon, F., Lemer, C., Rivaud, S. & Dehaene, S. (2002). Language-specific tuning of visual cortex? Functional properties of the Visual Word Form Area. Brain: A Journal Of Neurology, 125 (Pt 5), 1054-1069.
10. Coltheart, M., Davelaar, E., Jonasson, J.T. & Besner, D. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI: The psychology of reading. (pp. 535-555). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Dehaene, S., Cohen, L., Sigman, M. & Vinckier, F. (2005). The neural code for written words: A proposal. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9 (7), 335-341.
12. Dehaene, S., Naccache, L., Cohen, L., Bihan, D.L., Mangin, J.F., Poline, J.B. et al. (2001). Cerebral mechanisms of word masking and unconscious repetition priming. Nature Neuroscience, 4 (7), 752-758.
13. Ellis, A.W., Ansorge, L. & Lavidor, M. (2007). Words, hemispheres, and dissociable subsystems: The effects of exposure duration, case alternation, priming, and continuity of form on word recognition in the left and right visual fields. Brain and Language, 103 (3), 292-303.
14. Ellis, A.W., Brooks, J. & Lavidor, M. (2005). Evaluating a split fovea model of visual word recognition: Effects of case alternation in the two visual fields and in the left and right halves of words presented at the fovea. Neuropsychologia, 43 (8), 1128-1137.
15. Faust, M., Babkoff, H. & Kravetz, S. (1995). Linguistic processes in the two cerebral hemispheres: Implications for modularity vs interactionism. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 17 (2), 171-192.
16. Fiset, S.P. & Arguin, M. (1999). Case alternation and orthographic neighborhood size effects in the left and right cerebral hemispheres. Brain and Cognition, 40 (1), 116-118.
17. Hellige, J.B. & Cowin, E.L. (1996). Effects of stimulus arrangement on hemispheric differences and interhemispheric interaction for processing letter trigrams. Neuropsychology, 10 (2), 247-253.
18. Hildebrandt, N. (1994). The Reicher-Wheeler effect and models of deep and phonological dyslexia. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 8 (1), 1-18.
19. Hildebrandt, N., Caplan, D., Sokol, S. & Torreano, L. (1995). Lexical factors in the word-superiority effect. Memory and Cognition, 23 (1), 23-33.
20. Jarvis, B.G. (2002). DirectRT (Version 2002.0.2) [Computer Software]. New York: Empirisoft Corporation.
21. Jordan, T.R. & Patching, G.R. (2004). What do lateralized displays tell us about visual word perception? A cautionary indication from the word-letter effect. Neuropsychologia, 42 (11), 1504-1514.
22. Kronbichler, M., Hutzler, F., Wimmer, H., Mair, A., Staffen, W. & Ladurner, G. (2004). The visual word form area and the frequency with which words are encountered: Evidence from a parametric fMRI study. Neuroimage, 21, 946-953.
23. Kucera, H. & Francis, W.N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
24. Lavidor, M. & Ellis, A.W. (2001). Mixed-case effects in lateralized word recognition. Brain and Cognition, 46 (1), 192-195.
25. Lavidor, M. & Ellis, A.W. (2002a). Orthographic neighborhood effects in the right but not in the left cerebral hemisphere. Brain and Language, 80 (1), 63-76.
26. Lavidor, M. & Ellis, A.W. (2002b). Word length and orthographic neighborhood size effects in the left and right cerebral hemispheres. Brain and Language, 80 (1), 45-62.
27. Lavidor, M., Ellis, A.W., Shillcock, R. & Bland, T. (2001). Evaluating a split processing model of visual word recognition: Effects of word length. Cognitive Brain Research, 12, 265-272.
28. Lavidor, M., Hayes, A., Shillcock, R. & Ellis, A.W. (2004). Evaluating a split processing model of visual word recognition: Effects of orthographic neighborhood size. Brain and Language, 88 (3), 312-320.
29. Lavidor, M. & Walsh, V. (2003). A magnetic stimulation examination of orthographic neighborhood effects in visual word recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15 (3), 354-363.
30. Mason, M. (1978). From print to sound in mature readers as a form of reader ability and two forms of orthographic regularity. Memory and Cognition, 6 (5), 568-581.
31. Mayall, K. & Humphreys, G.W. (1996). Case mixing and task-sensitive disruption of lexical processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(2), 278-294.
32. Mayall, K., Humphreys, G.W. & Olson, A. (1997). Disruption to word or letter processing? The origins of case-mixing effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23 (5), 1275-1286.
33. Medler, D.A. & Binder, J.R. (2005). MCWord: An on-line orthographic database of the English language. [Data file]. Retrieved January 2008 from Medical College of Wisconsin, Language Imaging Laboratory Web site
34. Nicholls, M.E.R. & Clode, D. (1996). A failure to produce a left hemisphere advantage through verbal priming. Neuropsychologia, 34 (9), 893-904.
35. Nicholls, M.E.R. & Wood, A.G. (1998). The contribution of attention to the right visual field advantage for word recognition. Brain and Cognition, 38 (3), 339-357.
36. Oldfield, R.C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97-113.
37. Otten, L.J., Sveen, J. & Quayle, A.H. (2007). Distinct patterns of neural activity during memory formation of nonwords versus words. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19 (11), 1776-1789.
38. Paap, K.R., Newsome, S.L. & Noel, R.W. (1984). Word shape's in poor shape for the race to the lexicon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10 (3), 413-428.
39. Perea, M. & Rosa, E. (2000). The effects of orthographic neighborhood in reading and laboratory word identification tasks. Psychologia, 21, 327-340.
40. Reicher, G.M. (1969). Perceptual recognition as a function of meaningfulness of stimulus material. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81 (2), 275-280.
41. Schwartz, S., Montagner, S. & Kirsner, K. (1987). Are there different methods of lexical access for words presented in the left and right visual fields? Brain and Language, 31 (2), 301-307.
42. Skarratt, P.A. & Lavidor, M. (2006). Magnetic stimulation of the left visual cortex impairs expert word recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18 (10), 1749-1758.
43. Smith, F. (1969). Familiarity of configuration vs discriminability of features in the visual identification of words. Psychonomic Science, 14, 261-262.
44. Whitney, C. (2001). How the brain encodes the order of letters in a printed word: The SERIOL model and selective literature review. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8, 221-243.
45. Whitney, C. (2004). Hemisphere-specific effects in word recognition do not require hemisphere-specific modes of access. Brain and Language, 88 (3), 279-293.
46. Whitney, C. & Lavidor, M. (2005). Facilitative orthographic neighborhood effects: The SERIOL model account. Cognitive Psychology, 51, 179-213.
47. Young, A.W. & Ellis, A.W. (1985). Different methods of lexical access for words presented in the left and right visual hemifields. Brain and Language, 24 (2), 326-58.