Letter processing and font information during reading: Beyond distinctiveness, where vision meets design

Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics

Volumn 74, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 132-145

  Sanocki, Thomas ^a   Dyson, Mary C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF READING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Common features; Font; Font tuning; Letter identification; Letter perception; Reading; Type design

Indexed keywords

EID: 84856208443     PISSN: 19433921     EISSN: 1943393X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13414-011-0220-9     Document Type: Article

References (92)

1. Adams, D. (1989). abcdefg, a better constraint driven environment for font generation. In J. André & R. Hersch (Eds.), Raster imaging and digital typography (pp. 54-70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Arditi, A., & Cho, J. (2007). Letter case and text legibility in normal and low vision. Vision Research, 47, 2499-2505.
3. Baines, P., & Haslam, A. (2005). Type & typography (2nd ed.). London: Laurence King.
4. Beier, S., & Larson, K. (2010). Design improvements for frequently misrecognized letters. Information Design Journal, 18, 118-137.
5. Besner, D., Davelaar, E., Alcott, D., & Parry, P. (1984). Wholistic reading of alphabetic print: Evidence from the FDM and the FBI. In L. Henderson (Ed.), Orthographies and reading: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, neuropsychology and linguistics (pp. 121-135). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image under-standing. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147.
7. Bouma, H. (1971). Visual recognition of isolated lower case letters. Vision Research, 11, 459-474. doi: 10. 1016/0042-6989(71)90087-3.
8. Broadbent, D. E. (1977). Levels, hierarchies, and the locus of control. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 181-201.
9. Carter, R., Day, B., & Meggs, P. (1985). Typographic design: Form and communication. New York: van Nostrand Reinhold.
10. Changizi, M. A., & Shimojo, S. (2005). Character complexity and redundancy in writing systems over human history. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 272, 267-275.
11. Changizi, M. A., Zhang, Q., Ye, H., & Shimojo, S. (2006). The structures of letters and symbols throughout human history are selected to match those found in objects in natural scenes. The American Naturalist, 167, E117-E139.
12. Cheng, K. (2005). Designing type. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
13. Chung, S. T. L. (2004). Reading speed benefits from increased vertical word spacing in normal peripheral vision. Optometry and Vision Science, 81, 525-535.
14. Corcoran, D. W. J., & Rouse, R. O. (1970). An aspect of perceptual organization involved in reading typed and handwritten words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 22, 526-530.
15. Davis, C. J., & Bowers, J. S. (2006). Contrasting five different theories of letter position coding: Evidence from orthographic similarity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 535-557. doi: 10. 1037/0096-1523. 32. 3. 535.
16. Downing, J. (1967). What's wrong with the i.t.a.? Phi Delta Kappa, 262-266.
17. Finkbeiner, M., & Coltheart, M. (2009). Letter recognition: From perception to representation. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 26, 1-6. doi: 10. 1080/02643290902905294.
18. Fiset, D., Blais, C., Arguin, M., Tadros, K., Éthier-Majcher, C., Bub, D., et al. (2009). The spatio-temporal dynamics of visual letter recognition. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 26, 23-35. doi: 10. 1080/02643290802421160.
19. Fiset, D., Blais, C., Éthier-Majcher, C., Arguin, M., Bub, D., & Gosselin, F. (2008). Features for Identification of uppercase and lowercase letters. Psychological Science, 19, 1161-1168. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1467-9280. 2008. 02218. x.
20. Friedman, R. (1980). Identity without form: Abstract representations of letters. Perception & Psychophysics, 28, 53-60.
21. Gao, X., Stine-Morrow, E. A. L., Noh, S. R., & Eskew, R. T., Jr. (2011). Visual noise disrupts conceptual integration in reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 83-88.
22. Gauthier, I., Wong, A. C.-N., Hayward, W. G., & Cheung, O. S. (2006). Font tuning associated with expertise in letter perception. Perception, 35, 541-559. doi: 10. 1068/p5313.
23. Gervais, M. J., Harvey, L. O., & Roberts, J. O. (1984). Identification confusions among letters of the alphabet. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 655-666.
24. Gibson, E. J. (1969). Principles of perceptual learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
25. Gilmore, G. C. (1985). Letters are visual-stimuli: A comment on the use of confusion matrices. Perception & Psychophysics, 37, 389-390.
26. Goldinger, S. D., Azuma, T., Kleider, H. M., & Holmes, V. M. (2003). Font-specific memory: More than meets the eye? In J. S. Bowers & C. J. Marsolek (Eds.), Rethinking implicit memory (pp. 157-196). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27. Gomez, P., Ratcliff, R., & Perea, M. (2008). The overlap model: A model of letter position coding. Psychological Review, 115, 577-600. doi: 10. 1037/a0012667.
28. Gosselin, F. & Tjan, B. S. (2008, May). The past, present, and future of the written word. [Symposium Summary]. Symposium presented at the 8th Annual Meeting of the Vision Sciences Society, Naples, FL.
29. Grainger, J. (2008). Cracking the orthographic code: An introduction. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 1-35. doi: 10. 1080/01690960701578013.
30. Grainger, J., Rey, A., & Dufau, S. (2008). Letter perception: From pixels to pandemonium. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 381-387. doi: 10. 1016/j. tics. 2008. 06. 006.
31. Harris, J. (1973). Confusions in letter recognition. Printing Technology, 17(2), 29-34.
32. Humphreys, G. W., Mayall, K. A., & Cooper, A. C. G. (2003). The PIG in sPrInG: Evidence onletter grouping from the reading of buried words. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 939-946.
33. Johnston, E. (1945). Writing & illuminating, & lettering (21st reprint). London: Pitman.
34. Juhasz, B. J., Pollatsek, A., Hyönä, J., Drieghe, D., & Rayner, K. (2009). Parafoveal processing within and between words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1356-1376. doi: 10. 1080/17470210802400010.
35. Keren, G., & Baggen, S. (1981). Recognition models of alphanumeric characters. Perception & Psychophysics, 29, 234-246.
36. Knuth, D. E. (1982). The concept of a meta-font. Visible Language, 16, 3-27.
37. Kolers, P. A. (1969). Clues to a letter's recognition: Implications for the design of characters. Journal of Typographical Research, 3, 145-168.
38. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.
39. Lanthier, S. N., Risko, E. F., Stolz, J. A., & Besner, D. (2009). Not all visual features are created equal: Early processing in letter and word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 67-73. doi: 10. 3758/PBR. 16. 1. 67.
40. Livne, T., & Sagi, D. (2007). Configuration influence on crowding. Journal of Vision, 7(2, Art. 4), 1-12, Retrieved from http://journalofvision. org/7/2/4/. doi: 10. 1167/7. 2. 4.
41. Lockhead, G. R., & Crist, W. B. (1980). Making letters distinctive. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 483-493.
42. Lockhead, G. R., & Pomerantz, J. R. (1991). The perception of structure. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
43. Luna, P. (1992). Understanding type for desktop publishing. London: Blueprint.
44. Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Fransisco: Freeman.
45. Martin, C. S., Mullennix, J. W., Pisoni, D. B., & Summers, W. V. (1989). Effects of talker variability on recall of spoken word lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 676-684.
46. Massaro, D. W., & Sanocki, T. (1993). Visual information processing in reading. In D. Willows, R. Kruck, & E. Corcos (Eds.), Visual processes in reading and reading disabilities (pp. 139-161). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
47. Massaro, D. W., & Schmuller, J. (1975). Visual features, preperceptual storage and processing time in reading. In D. W. Masaro (Ed.), Understanding language (pp. 207-239). New York: Academic Press.
48. 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, 1275-1286.
49. McClelland, J. L. (1976). Preliminary letter identification in the perception of words and nonwords. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 80-91.
50. McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 80, 375-407.
51. Miller, J. (1981). Global precedence in attention and decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 1161-1174.
52. Mozer, M. C. (1983). Letter migration in word perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 531-546. doi: 10. 1037/0096-1523. 9. 4. 531.
53. Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. CognitivePsychology, 9, 353-383.
54. Nearey, T. M. (1989). Static, dynamic, and relational properties in vowel perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85, 2088-2113.
55. Neely, J. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In D. Besner & G. Humphreys (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 264-336). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
56. Oden, G. C. (1979). A fuzzy logical model of letter identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 336-352.
57. Oden, G. C. (1984). Dependence, independence, and emergence of word features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 394-405.
58. Oden, G. C., Rueckl, J. G., & Sanocki, T. (1991). Making sentences make sense, or words to that effect. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.), Understanding word and sentence (pp. 285-303). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
59. Palmer, S. E. (1975). Visual perception and knowledge: Notes on a model of sensory-cognitive interaction. In D. A. Norman & D. E. Rumelhart (Eds.), Explorations in Cognition (pp. 279-307). San Francisco: Freeman.
60. Paterson, D. G., & Tinker, M. A. (1940). Influence of line width on eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 27, 572-577.
61. Pelli, D. G., Burns, C. W., Farell, B., & Moore-Page, D. C. (2006). Feature detection and letter identification. Vision Research, 46, 4646-4674. doi: 10. 1016/j. visres. 2006. 04. 023.
62. Pelli, D. G., & Farell, B. (1999). Why use noise? Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 16, 647-653.
63. Pelli, D. G., Farell, B., & Moore, D. C. (2003). The remarkable inefficiency of word recognition. Nature, 423, 752-756. doi: 10. 1038/nature01516.
64. Pelli, D. G., Palomares, M., & Majaj, N. J. (2004). Crowding is unlike ordinary masking: Distinguishing feature integration from detection. Journal of Vision, 4(12), 1136-1169.
65. Pelli, D. G., Tillman, K. A., Freeman, J., Su, M., Berger, T. D., & Majaj, N. J. (2007). Crowding and eccentricity determine reading rate. Journal of Vision, 7(2, Art. 20, 1-36. http://journalofvision. org/7/2/20/.
66. Pinker, S. (1984). Visual cognition: An introduction. Cognition, 18, 1-63.
67. Pittman, J., & St. John, J. R. (1969). Alphabets and reading: The Initial Teaching Alphabet. New York: Pittman.
68. Reicher, G. M. (1969). Perceptual recognition as a function of meaningfulness of stimulus material. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 275-280.
69. Rudnicky, A. I., & Kolers, P. A. (1984). Size and case of type as stimuli in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 231-249.
70. Saarela, T. P., Sayim, B., Westheimer, G., & Herzog M. H. (2009). Global stimulus configuration modulates crowding. Journal of Vision, 9(2, Art. 5), 1-11, http://www. journalofvision. org/content/9/2/5. doi: 10. 1167/9. 2. 5.
71. Sanocki, T. (1987). Visual knowledge underlying letter perception: Font-specific schematic tuning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 267-278.
72. Sanocki, T. (1988). Font regularity constraints on the process of letter recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 472-480.
73. Sanocki, T. (1991a). Effects of early common features on form recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 50, 490-497.
74. Sanocki, T. (1991b). Intrapattern and interpattern relations in letter recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 924-941.
75. Sanocki, T. (1991c). Looking for a structural network: Effects of changing size and style on letter recognition. Perception, 20, 529-541.
76. Sanocki, T. (1992). Effects of font- and letter-specific experience on the perceptual processing of letters. American Journal of Psychology, 105, 435-458.
77. Sanocki, T. (1993). Time course of object identification: Evidence for a global-to-local contingency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 878-898.
78. Sanocki, T. (1999). Constructing structural descriptions. Visual Cognition, 6, 299-318.
79. Sanocki, T. (2001). Interaction of scale and time during object recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 290-302.
80. Seymour, P. H. K., & Jack, M. V. (1978). Effects of visual familiarity on same and differ-ent decision-processes. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, 455-469.
81. Shepard, R. N. (2001). Perceptual-cognitive universals as reflections of the world. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 581-601.
82. Spencer, H. (1968). The visible word. London: Royal College of Art.
83. Spinelli, D., De Luca, M., Filippo, G. D., Mancini, M., Martelli, M., & Zoccolotti, P. (2005). Length effect in word naming in reading: Role of reading experience and reading deficit in Italian readers. Developmental Neuropsychology, 27, 217-235.
84. Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders' method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276-315.
85. Stuart, J. A., & Burian, H. M. (1962). A study of separation difficulty: Its relationship to visual acuity in normal and amblyopic eyes. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 53, 471-477.
86. Tanner, W. P., Jr., & Birdsall, T. G. (1958). Definitions of d' and n as psychophysical measures. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 30, 922-928.
87. Tinker, M. A. (1963). Legibility of print. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
88. Tinker, M. A., & Paterson, D. G. (1928). Influence of type form on speed of reading. Journal of Applied Psychology, 12, 359-368.
89. Walker, P. (2008). Font tuning: A review and new experimental evidence. Visual Cognition, 16, 1022-1058. doi: 10. 1080/13506280701535924.
90. Ward, L. M. (1982). Determinants of attention to local and global features of visual forms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 562-581.
91. Wheeler, D. D. (1970). Processes in word recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 1, 59-85.
92. White, S. J., Johnson, R. L., Liversedge, S. P., & Rayner, K. (2008). Eye movements when reading transposed text: The importance of word-beginning letters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1261-1276. doi: 10. 1037/0096-1523. 34. 5. 1261.