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
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

Auteurs

Manuel Perea (M)

Departamento de Metodología and ERI-Lectura, Universitat de València, 46010 Valencia, Spain.
Centro de Ciencia Cognitiva, Universidad Antonio de Nebrija, 28015 Madrid, Spain.

Ana Baciero (A)

Centro de Ciencia Cognitiva, Universidad Antonio de Nebrija, 28015 Madrid, Spain.

Ana Marcet (A)

Departamento de Didáctica de la Lengua y la Literatura, Universitat de València, 46022 Valencia, Spain.

María Fernández-López (M)

Departamento de Metodología and ERI-Lectura, Universitat de València, 46010 Valencia, Spain.

Pablo Gómez (P)

Department of Psychology, Palm Desert Campus, California State University, San Bernardino, CA 92407, USA.

Classifications MeSH