The role of familiar units in perception of words and nonwords

This paper investigates the effects of familiarity with whole-word units and letter-cluster units in perceptual encoding of letter strings. Subjects viewed brief, masked presentations of words and pronounceable pseudowords differing in letter cluster frequency. Identification of both display types was compared to control single letters. Perceptual accuracy was indexed by probe forced-choice responses and full verbal reports of the displays. Evidence that familiarity of whole-word units facilitated encoding was mixed but, on balance, favorable. Evidence that familiarity of letter-cluster units facilitated encoding was completely absent. This negative finding is surprising in view of the fact that we did obtain a large advantage of letters in pseudo-words as well as words over single letters. The discussion section considers an alternative to the view that perceivers use detectors for familiar letter-cluster units in the process of forming representations of pronounceable, orthographically regular letter strings.

[1]  J. M. Cattell THE TIME TAKEN UP BY CEREBRAL OPERATIONS , 1886 .

[2]  E. B. Huey The Psychology And Pedagogy Of Reading , 1908 .

[3]  R. Solomon,et al.  Visual duration threshold as a function of word-probability. , 1951, Journal of experimental psychology.

[4]  J. Bruner,et al.  Familiarity of Letter Sequences and Tachistoscopic Identification , 1954 .

[5]  E. Gibson,et al.  The role of grapheme-phoneme correspondence in the perception of words. , 1962, The American journal of psychology.

[6]  J. Pierce SOME SOURCES OF ARTIFACT IN STUDIES OF THE TACHISTOSCOPIC PERCEPTION OF WORDS. , 1963, Journal of experimental psychology.

[7]  M. S. Mayzner,et al.  Tables of single-letter and digram frequency counts for various word-length and letter-position combinations. , 1965 .

[8]  A Wingfield,et al.  Response Latencies in Naming Objects , 1965, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[9]  G. Biederman,et al.  Supplementary report: The recognition of tachistoscopically presented five-letter words as a function of digram frequency. , 1966 .

[10]  Crossword puzzle dictionary , 1967 .

[11]  H. Kucera,et al.  Computational analysis of present-day American English , 1967 .

[12]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The Sound Pattern of English , 1968 .

[13]  D. Broadbent,et al.  Visual perception of words differing in letter digram frequency , 1968 .

[14]  G. M. Reicher Perceptual recognition as a function of meaninfulness of stimulus material. , 1969, Journal of experimental psychology.

[15]  John J. L. Morton,et al.  Interaction of information in word recognition. , 1969 .

[16]  F. Smith The use of featural dependencies across letters in the visual identification of words , 1969 .

[17]  D. D. Wheeler Processes in word recognition , 1970 .

[18]  E. Gibson,et al.  Utilization of spelling patterns by deaf and hearing subjects , 1971 .

[19]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  Expectancy as a determinant of functional units in perceptual recognition , 1971 .

[20]  J. Baron,et al.  An analysis of the word-superiority effect☆ , 1973 .

[21]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Visual factors in word perception , 1973 .

[22]  T. Landauer,et al.  Structural differences between common and rare words: Failure of equivalence assumptions for theories of word recognition , 1973 .

[23]  J. Mezrich The word superiority effect in brief visual displays: Elimination by vocalization , 1973 .

[24]  Jonathan Baron,et al.  Phonemic Stage Not Necessary for Reading , 1973 .

[25]  James F. Juola,et al.  Letter identification in word, nonword, and single-letter displays , 1974 .

[26]  S. Jay Samuels,et al.  Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading , 1974 .

[27]  D. Rumelhart,et al.  Process of recognizing tachistoscopically presented words. , 1974, Psychological review.

[28]  L. Manelis The effect of meaningfulness in tachistoscopic word perception , 1974 .

[29]  K I Forster,et al.  Evidence for lexical access in a simultaneous matching task , 1975, Memory & cognition.

[30]  W. Estes The Locus of Inferential and Perceptual Processes in Letter Identification. , 1975 .

[31]  M. Mason Reading Ability and Letter Search Time: Effects of Orthographic Structure Defined by Single-Letter Positional Frequency. , 1975 .

[32]  L. E. Krueger Familiarity effects in visual information processing. , 1975, Psychological bulletin.

[33]  K. T. Spoehr,et al.  The role of orthographic and phonotactic rules in perceiving letter patterns. , 1975, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[34]  D. O. Robinson,et al.  The role of bigram frequency in the perception of words and nonwords , 1975, Memory & cognition.

[35]  J. L. Mcclelland Preliminary letter identification in the perception of words and nonwords. , 1976, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[36]  J. Frederiksen,et al.  Spelling and sound: Approaches to the internal lexicon. , 1976 .

[37]  James C Johnston,et al.  A test of the Sophisticated Guessing Theory of word perception , 1978, Cognitive Psychology.