Reading through a noisy channel: Why there's nothing special about the perception of orthography

Psychological Review

Volumn 119, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 517-545

  Norris, Dennis ^a   Kinoshita, Sachiko ^b  

^a MRC COGNITION AND BRAIN SCIENCES UNIT   (United Kingdom)

^b MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Bayes; Computational modeling; Perception; Reading

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DECISION MAKING; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PERCEPTION; PHYSIOLOGY; READING; REPETITION PRIMING; THEORETICAL MODEL; VISION;

ALGORITHMS; BAYES THEOREM; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DECISION MAKING; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; READING; REPETITION PRIMING; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 84867058004     PISSN: 0033295X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0028450     Document Type: Article

References (86)

1. Anderson, J. R. (1990). Adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Andrews, S. (1997). The effect of orthographic similarity on lexical retrieval: Resolving neighborhood conflicts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 439-461. doi:10.3758/BF03214334
3. Bahl, L. R., & Jelinek, F. (1975). Decoding for channels with insertions, deletions, and substitutions with applications to speech recognition. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 21, 404-411. doi:10.1109/TIT.1975.1055419
4. Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., & Pilotti, M. (1999). Item-level analyses of lexical decision performance: Results from a mega-study. In Abstracts of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society (p. 44). Los Angeles, CA: Psychonomic Society.
5. Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B.,... Treiman, R. (2007). The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445-459. doi:10.3758/BF03193014
6. Bogacz, R. (2007). Optimal decision-making theories: Linking neurobiology with behaviour. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 118-125. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.12.006
7. Bowers, J. S., Davis, C. J., & Hanley, D. A. (2005). Automatic semantic activation of embedded words: Is there a "hat" in "that"? Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 131-143. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2004.09.003
8. Brill, E., & Moore, R. C. (2000). An improved error model for noisy channel spelling correction. In ACL '00: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 286-293). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.3115/1075218.1075255
9. Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 977-990. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.977
10. Chambers, S. M. (1979). Letter and order information in lexical access. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 225-241. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90136-1
11. Coltheart, M., Davelaar, E., Jonasson, J. T., & Besner, D. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp. 535-555). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. 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.
13. Damerau, F. J. (1964). A technique for computer detection and correction of spelling errors. Communications of the ACM, 7, 171-176. doi: 10.1145/363958.363994
14. Davis, C. J. (1999). The self-organising lexical acquisition and recognition (SOLAR) model of visual word recognition. Sydney, New South Wales, Australia: University of New South Wales.
15. Davis, C. J. (2006). Orthographic input coding: A review of behavioral evidence and current models. In S. Andrews (Ed.), From inkmarks to ideas: Current issues in lexical processing (pp. 180-206). Hove, England: Erlbaum.
16. Davis, C. J. (2010). The spatial coding model of visual word identification. Psychological Review, 117, 713-758. doi:10.1037/a0019738
17. Davis, C. J., & Lupker, S. J. (2006). Masked inhibitory priming in English: Evidence for lexical inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 668-687. doi:10.1037/00961523.32.3.668
18. Dehaene, S., Cohen, L., Sigman, M., & Vinckier, F. (2005). The neural code for written words: A proposal. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 335-341. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.05.004
19. Ferrand, L., New, B., Brysbaert, M., Keuleers, E., Bonin, P., Meot, A.,... Pallier, C. (2010). The French Lexicon Project: Lexical decision data for 38,840 French words and 38,840 pseudowords. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 488-496. doi:10.3758/BRM.42.2.488
20. Forster, K. I., & Davis, C. (1984). Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 680-698. doi:10.1037/02787393.10.4.680
21. Frost, R. (in press). Towards a universal model of reading. Brain and Behavioral Sciences.
22. García-Orza, J., Perea, M., & Estudillo, A. (2011). Masked transposition effects for simple versus complex nonalphanumeric objects. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 2573-2582. doi:10.3758/s13414-0110206-7
23. García-Orza, J., Perea, M., & Muñoz, S. (2010). Are transposition effects specific to letters? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1603-1618. doi:10.1080/17470210903474278
24. 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
25. Grainger, J. (2008). Cracking the orthographic code: An introduction. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 1-35. doi:10.1080/01690960701578013
26. Grainger, J., Granier, J. P., Farioli, F., Van Assche, E., & van Heuven, W. J. (2006). Letter position information and printed word perception: The relative-position priming constraint. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 865-884. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.32.4.865
27. Grainger, J., & Jacobs, A. M. (1996). Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model. Psychological Review, 103, 518-565. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.3.518
28. Grainger, J., & van Heuven, W. J. (2003). Modeling letter position coding in printed word perception. In P. Bonin (Ed.), The mental lexicon (pp. 1-23). New York, NY: NOVA Science Publishers.
29. Grainger, J., & Whitney, C. (2004). Does the huamn mnid raed wrods as a wlohe? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 58-59. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2003.11.006
30. Henery, R. J. (1981a). Place probabilities in normal order statistics models for horse races. Journal of Applied Probability, 18, 839-852. doi: 10.2307/3213059
31. Henery, R. J. (1981b). Probabilities as models for horse races. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 43, 86-91.
32. Jacobs, A. M., & Grainger, J. (1994). Models of visual word recognition: Sampling the state of the art. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 1311-1334. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.20.6.1311
33. Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B. J. (1992). The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 175-219. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(92)90007-O
34. Kernighan, M. D., Church, K. W., & Gale, W. A. (1990). A spelling correction program based on a noisy channel model. In H. Karlgren (Ed.), COLING '90: Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Computational Linguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 205-210). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. doi:10.3115/997939.997975
35. Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2010). Wuggy: A multilingual pseudoword generator. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 627-633. doi:10.3758/BRM.42.3.627
36. Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2011). Detecting inherent bias in lexical decision experiments with the LD1NN algorithm. Mental Lexicon, 6, 34-52.
37. Keuleers, E., Diependaele, K., & Brysbaert, M. (2010). Practice effects in large-scale visual word recognition studies: A lexical decision study on 14,000 Dutch monoand disyllabic words and nonwords. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 174. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00174
38. Keuleers, E., Lacey, P., Rastle, K., & Brysbaert, M. (2012). The British Lexicon Project: Lexical decision data for 28,730 monosyllabic and disyllabic English words. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 287-304. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0118-4.
39. Kinoshita, S., & Norris, D. (2009). Transposed-letter priming of prelexical orthographic representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1-18. doi:10.1037/a0014277
40. Kinoshita, S., Norris, D., & Siegelman, N. (2012). Transposed-letter priming effect in Hebrew in the same-different task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/17470218.2012.655749
41. Kolak, O., & Resnik, P. (2002). OCR error correction using a noisy channel model. In HLT '02: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Human Language Technology Research (pp. 257-262). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
42. Levenshtein, V. I. (1966). Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady, 10, 707-710.
43. Levy, R. (2008). A noisy-channel model of rational human sentence comprehension under uncertain input. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: EMNLP '08 (p. 234). Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.
44. Lo, S. Y., & Bacon-Shone, J. (1994). A comparison between two models for predicting ordering probabilities in multiple-entry competitions. Statistician, 43, 317-327. doi:10.2307/2348347
45. Logan, G. D. (1996). The CODE theory of visual attention: An integration
46. MacKay, D. J. (2002). Information theory, inference, and learning algorithms. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
47. Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
48. Martelli, M., Silla, S., Majaj, N. J., & Pelli, D. G. (2003). Complexity impairs efficiency in the periphery. Journal of Vision, 3(9), Article 505. doi:10.1167/3.9.505
49. 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. doi:10.1037/0033295X.88.5.375
50. Mueller, S. T., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2005, July). A transformation based model of letter string identification. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Mathematical Psychology, Memphis, TN.
51. Navarro, G. (2001). A guided tour to approximate string matching. ACM Computing Surveys, 33, 31-88. doi:10.1145/375360.375365
52. Needleman, S. B., & Wunsch, C. D. (1970). A general method applicable to the search for similarities in the amino acid sequence of two proteins. Journal of Molecular Biology, 48, 443-453. doi:10.1016/00222836(70)90057-4
53. Norris, D. (1994). Shortlist: A connectionist model of continuous speech recognition. Cognition, 52, 189-234. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94) 90043-4
54. Norris, D. (2005). How do computational models help us develop better theories? In A. Cutler & J. McQueen (Eds.), Twenty-first century psycholinguistics: Four cornerstones (pp. 331-346). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
55. Norris, D. (2006). The Bayesian reader: Explaining word recognition as an optimal Bayesian decision process. Psychological Review, 113, 327-357. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.327
56. Norris, D. (2009). Putting it all together: A unified account of word recognition and reaction-time distributions. Psychological Review, 116, 207-219. doi:10.1037/a0014259
57. Norris, D., & Kinoshita, S. (2008). Perception as evidence accumulation and Bayesian inference: Insights from masked priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 434-455. doi:10.1037/a0012799
58. Norris, D., Kinoshita, S., & van Casteren, M. (2010). A stimulus sampling theory of letter identity and order. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 254-271. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.11.002
59. Norris, D., & McQueen, J. M. (2008). Shortlist B: A Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition. Psychological Review, 115, 357-395. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.357
60. Page, M. P. A., & Norris, D. (1998). The primacy model: A new model of immediate serial recall. Psychological Review, 105, 761-781. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.105.4.761-781
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., Tillman, K. A., Freeman, J., Su, M., Berger, T. D., & Majaj, N. J. (2007). Crowding and eccentricity determine reading rate. Journal of Vision, 7, 21-36.
63. Perea, M., & Lupker, S. J. (2004). Can CANISO activate CASINO? Transposed-letter similarity effects with nonadjacent letter positions. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 231-246. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.005
64. Perea, M., & Rosa, E. (2000). The effects of orthographic neighborhood in reading and laboratory word identification tasks: A review. Psicologica, 2, 327-340.
65. Peressotti, F., & Grainger, J. (1999). The role of letter identity and letter position in orthographic processing. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 785-794.
66. Purcell, B. A., Heitz, R. P., Cohen, J. Y., Schall, J. D., Logan, G. D., & Palmeri, T. J. (2010). Neurally constrained modeling of perceptual decision making. Psychological Review, 117, 1113-1143. doi:10.1037/a0020311
67. Ratcliff, R., Gomez, P., & McKoon, G. (2004). A diffusion model account of the lexical decision task. Psychological Review, 111, 159-182. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.1.159
68. Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (2008). The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Computation, 20, 873-922. doi:10.1162/neco.2008.12-06-420
69. Rayner, K., White, S. J., Johnson, R. L., & Liversedge, S. P. (2006). Raeding wrods with jubmled lettres: There is a cost. Psychological Science, 17, 192-193. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01684.x
70. Roelofs, A. (2005). From Popper to Lakatos: A case for cumulative computational modeling. In A. Cutler (Ed.), Twenty-first century psycholinguistics: Four cornerstones (pp. 313-330). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
71. Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1982). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 2. The contextual enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of the model. Psychological Review, 89, 60-94. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.89.1.60
72. Rumelhart, D. E., & Siple, P. (1974). Process of recognizing tachistoscopically presented words. Psychological Review, 81, 99-118. doi:10.1037/h0036117
73. Schoonbaert, S., & Grainger, J. (2004). Letter position coding in printed word perception: Effects of repeated and transposed letters. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19, 333-367. doi:10.1080/01690960344000198
74. Sellers, P. H. (1980). The theory and computation of evolutionary distances: Pattern recognition. Journal of Algorithms, 1, 359-373. doi: 10.1016/0196-6774(80)90016-4
75. Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 79-423, 623-656.
76. Townsend, J. T. (1976). Serial and within-stage independent parallel model equivalence on the minimum completion time. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 14, 219-238. doi:10.1016/0022-2496(76)90003-1
77. Treisman, A. (2006). Object tokens, binding and visual memory. In H. Zimmer, A. Mecklinger, & U. Lindenberger (Eds.), Handbook of binding and memory: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience (pp. 315-338). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
78. Van Assche, E., & Grainger, J. (2006). A study of relative-position priming with superset primes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 399-415. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.32.2.399
79. Velan, H., & Frost, R. (2007). Cambridge University versus Hebrew University: The impact of letter transposition on reading English and Hebrew. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 913-918. doi:10.3758/BF03194121
80. Welvaert, M., Farioli, F., & Grainger, J. (2008). Graded effects of number of inserted letters in superset priming. Experimental Psychology, 55, 54-63. doi:10.1027/1618-3169.55.1.54
81. Whitney, C. (2001). How the brain encodes the order of letters in a printed word: The SERIOL model and selective literature review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 221-243. doi:10.3758/BF03196158
82. Whitney, C., & Cornelissen, P. (2008). SERIOL reading. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 143-164. doi:10.1080/01690960701579771
83. Wing, A. M., & Baddeley, A. D. (1980). Spelling errors in handwriting: A corpus and a distributional analysis. In U. Frith (Ed.), Cognitive processes in spelling (pp. 251-285). London, England: Academic Press.
84. Wing, A. M., & Baddeley, A. D. (2009). Righting errors in writing errors: The Wing and Baddeley (1980) spelling error corpus revisited. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 26, 223-226. doi:10.1080/02643290902823612
85. Yarkoni, T., Balota, D. A., & Yap, M. (2008). Moving beyond Coltheart's N: A new measure of orthographic similarity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 971-979. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.5.971
86. Zeno, S. M., Ivens, S. H., Millard, R. T., & Duvvuri, R. (1995). The educator's word frequency guide. Brewster, NY: Touchstone Applied Science.