Is there a cost at encoding words with joined letters during visual word recognition?

  1. Manuel Roldán 1
  2. Ana Marcet 1
  3. Manuel Perea 1
  1. 1 Universitat de València
    info

    Universitat de València

    Valencia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/043nxc105

Revista:
Psicológica: Revista de metodología y psicología experimental

ISSN: 1576-8597

Ano de publicación: 2018

Volume: 39

Número: 2

Páxinas: 279-291

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.2478/PSICOLJ-2018-0012 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso aberto editor

Outras publicacións en: Psicológica: Revista de metodología y psicología experimental

Resumo

For simplicity, models of visual-word recognition have focused on printed words composed of separated letters, thus overlooking the processing of cursive words. Manso de Zuniga, Humphreys, and Evett (1991) claimed that there is an early “cursive normalization” encoding stage when processing written words with joined letters. To test this claim, we conducted a lexical decision experiment in which words were presented either with separated or joined letters. To examine if the cost of letter segmentation occurs early in processing, we also manipulated a factor (i.e., word-frequency) that is posited to affect subsequent lexical processing. Results showed faster response times for the words composed of separated letters than for the words composed of joined letters. This effect occurred similarly for low- and high-frequency words. Thus, the present data offer some empirical support to Manso de Zuniga et al.’s (1991) idea of an early “cursive normalization” stage when processing joined-letters words. This pattern of data can be used to constrain the mapping of the visual input into letter and word units in future versions of models of visual word recognition.

€ Ver financiamento

Información de financiamento

The research reported in this article has been partially supported by Grants PSI2014-53444-P (Manuel Perea), PSI2017-86210-P (Manuel Perea), and BES-2015-07414 (Ana Marcet) from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness.

Financiadores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Afonso O. Álvarez C. J. & Kandel S. (2014). Effects of grapheme-to-phoneme probability on writing durations. Memory & Cognition 43 579–592. doi:10.3758/s13421-014-0489-8
  • Balota D. A. Yap M. J. Hutchinson K. A. Cortese M. J. Kessler B. Loftis B. Neely J. H. Nelson D. L. Simpson G. B. & Treiman R. (2007). The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods 39 3 445-459. doi:10.3758/bf03193014
  • Barnhart A. S. & Goldinger S. D. (2010). Interpreting chicken-scratch: Lexical access for handwritten words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 36 906-923. doi:10.1037/a0019258
  • Barnhart A. S. & Goldinger S. D. (2015). Orthographic and phonological neighbourhood effects in handwritten word perception. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 22 1739-1745. doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0846-z
  • Duchon A. Perea M. Sebastián-Gallés N. Martí A. & Carreiras M. (2013). EsPal: One-stop shopping for Spanish word properties. Behavior Research Methods45 1246-1258. doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0326-1
  • Dufau S. Grainger J. & Ziegler J. C. (2012). How to say “no” to a nonword: A leaky competing accumulator model of lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 38 1117–1128. doi:10.1037/a0026948
  • Forster K. & Forster J. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accurancy. Behavior Research Methods35 116-124. doi:10.3758/bf03195503
  • Gomez P. (2012). Mathematical models of the lexical decision task. In J. Adelman (Ed.) Visual Recognition Word (Volume 1): Models and Methods Orthography and Phonology (pp. 70–89). Hove: Psychology Press. Google Scholar
  • Gomez P. & Perea M. (2014). Decomposing encoding and decisional components in visual-word recognition: A diffusion model analysis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 67 2455-2466. doi:10.1080/17470218.2014.937447
  • Hellige J. B. & Adamson M. M. (2006). Hemispheric differences in processing handwritten cursive. Brain and Language 102 215-227. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2006.11.003
  • Keuleers E. & Brysbaert M. (2010). Wuggy: A multilingual pseudoword generator. Behavior Research Methods 42 627-633. doi:10.3758/brm.42.3.627
  • Manso de Zuniga C. Humphreys G. W. & Evett L. J. (1991). Additive and interactive effects of repetition degradation and word frequency in the reading of handwriting. In D. Besner & G. W. Humphreys (Eds.) Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 10-33). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
  • Marcet A. & Perea M. (2017). Is nevtral NEUTRAL? Visual similarity effects in the early phases of written-word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 24 1180–1185. doi:10.3758/s13423-016-1180-9
  • Marcet A. & Perea M. (2018). Can I order a burger at rnacdonalds.com? Visual similarity effects of multi-letter combinations at the early stages of word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory & Cognition 44 699-706. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000477
  • Perea M. Gil-López C. Beléndez V. & Carreiras M. (2016). Do handwritten words magnify lexical effects in visual word recognition? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 69 1631-1647. doi:10.1080/17470218.2015.1091016
  • Perea M. Marcet A. Uixera B. & Vergara-Martínez M. (2018). Eye movements when reading sentences with handwritten words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 71 20-27 doi:10.1018/17470218.2016.1237531
  • Pollatsek A. & Well A. D. (1995). On the use of counterbalanced designs in cognitive research: A suggestion for a better and more powerful analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 21 3 785-794. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.21.3.785
  • Qiao E. Vinckier F. Szwed M. Naccache L. Valabrègue R. Dehaene S. & Cohen L. (2010). Unconsciously deciphering handwriting: Subliminal invariance for handwritten words in the visual word forma area. NeuroImage 49 1786-1799. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.09.034
  • Ratcliff R. Gómez P. & McKoon G. (2004). A diffusion model account of the lexical decision task. Psychological Review 111 1 159-182. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.111.1.159
  • Rayner K. Pollatsek A. Ashby J. & Clifton C. E. (2012). The psychology of reading. London: Psychology Press. doi:10.4324/9780203155158
  • Sanocki T. & Dyson M. C. (2012). Letter processing and font information during reading: Beyond distinctiveness where vision meets design. Attention Perception and Psychophysics 74 132-145. doi:10.3758/s13414-011-0220-9
  • Sternberg S. (1969). The discovery of processing states: Extensions of Donders’ method. Acta Psychologica30 276-315. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(69)90055-9
Fonte de datos: Dialnet