Do Grading Gray Stimuli Help to Encode Letter Position?
letter position coding
lexical decision
orthographic processing
perceptual factors
word recognition
Journal
Vision (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2411-5150
Titre abrégé: Vision (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101733282
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 Mar 2021
04 Mar 2021
Historique:
received:
27
12
2020
revised:
04
02
2021
accepted:
01
03
2021
entrez:
3
4
2021
pubmed:
4
4
2021
medline:
4
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Numerous experiments in the past decades recurrently showed that a transposed-letter pseudoword (e.g., JUGDE) is much more wordlike than a replacement-letter control (e.g., JUPTE). Critically, there is an ongoing debate as to whether this effect arises at a perceptual level (e.g., perceptual uncertainty at assigning letter position of an array of visual objects) or at an abstract language-specific level (e.g., via a level of "open bigrams" between the letter and word levels). Here, we designed an experiment to test the limits of perceptual accounts of letter position coding. The stimuli in a lexical decision task were presented either with a homogeneous letter intensity or with a graded gray intensity, which indicated an unambiguous letter order. The pseudowords were either transposed-letter pseudowords or replaced-letter pseudowords (e.g., jugde vs. jupte). The results showed much longer response times and substantially more errors in the transposed-letter pseudowords than in the replacement-letter pseudowords, regardless of visual format. These findings favor the idea that language-specific orthographic element factors play an essential role when encoding letter position during word recognition.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33806403
pii: vision5010012
doi: 10.3390/vision5010012
pmc: PMC8005957
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : Valencian Government
ID : GV/2020/074
Organisme : Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation
ID : PSI2017-86210-P
Références
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2018 Feb;71(2):335-359
pubmed: 28376655
Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2003 Feb;35(1):116-24
pubmed: 12723786
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2009 Apr;35(2):480-98
pubmed: 19331502
Front Psychol. 2011 Apr 13;2:54
pubmed: 21716577
PLoS One. 2013 Jul 02;8(7):e68460
pubmed: 23844204
Psychon Bull Rev. 2001 Jun;8(2):221-43
pubmed: 11495111
Curr Biol. 2011 Mar 8;21(5):363-8
pubmed: 21333539
Psychol Rev. 1996 Oct;103(4):603-49
pubmed: 8888649
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2019 Jun;72(6):1344-1353
pubmed: 29969979
PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e45636
pubmed: 23071522
Mem Cognit. 2003 Sep;31(6):829-41
pubmed: 14651292
Behav Res Methods. 2007 Aug;39(3):445-59
pubmed: 17958156
Psychol Rev. 2008 Jul;115(3):577-600
pubmed: 18729592
Percept Psychophys. 1992 Jan;51(1):49-56
pubmed: 1549424
Lang Speech. 2020 Dec 25;:23830920971315
pubmed: 33356841
Ann Dyslexia. 2017 Jul;67(2):114-127
pubmed: 26993270
Br J Psychol. 2021 Feb;112(1):52-91
pubmed: 32780425