The PIG in sPrInG: Evidence on letter grouping from the reading of buried words

We introduce a novel procedure for investigating factors that determine selective attention to letters in words. Participants were presented with words (in Experiments 1 and 3) and nonwords (in Experiment 2) that contained a buried word whose letters differed in color relative to the other letters present (e.g.,pig, in spring). The strings were presented in single case or mixed case, keeping the letters of the buried words in one case (SpRiNg). The time in which the whole stimulus was named was shorter for same-case than for mixed-case strings (forspring: spring < SpRiNg). In contrast, the time in which buried words were named was shorter in mixed- than in same-case strings (forpig: spring > SpRiNg). Across items, the effects of case mixing were negatively correlated across the two tasks. The positive effect of case mixing for buried words also occurred irrespective of whether the whole string was a word or a nonword, and there were contributions from similarity of both letter size and case. The results suggest that case mixing can facilitate selective attention to letters, which is otherwise disrupted by size- and case-based grouping across letter strings. The study provides evidence for letter grouping using size and case information.

[1]  D. LaBerge Spatial extent of attention to letters and words. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[3]  F. Smith,et al.  Familiarity of configuration vs discriminability of features in the visual identification of words , 1969 .

[4]  B. Weekes Differential Effects of Number of Letters on Word and Nonword Naming Latency , 1997 .

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

[6]  James T. Enns,et al.  Preemption effects in visual search: evidence for low-level grouping. , 1995 .

[7]  M. Coltheart,et al.  Case alternation impairs word identification , 1974 .

[8]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  CASE MIXING AND THE TASK-SENSITIVE DISRUPTION OF LEXICAL PROCESSING , 1996 .

[9]  D. Besner,et al.  Reading pseudohomophones: Implications for models of pronunciation assembly and the locus of word-frequency effects in naming. , 1987 .

[10]  Derek Besner,et al.  Word frequency and pattern distortion in visual word identification and production: An examination of four classes of models. , 1987 .

[11]  G W Humphreys,et al.  Driving attention with the top down: The relative contribution of target templates to the linear separability effect in the size dimension , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[12]  J. Duncan,et al.  Visual search and stimulus similarity. , 1989, Psychological review.

[13]  Colin M. Macleod,et al.  The stroop task : the «Gold Standard» of attentional measures , 1992 .

[14]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Lexical recovery from extinction: Interactions between visual form and stored knowledge modulate visual selection , 2001, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[15]  Saul Sternberg,et al.  The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders' method , 1969 .

[16]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. , 1981 .

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

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

[19]  Veronika Coltheart,et al.  Phonological processes in reading: A tutorial review. , 1987 .

[20]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Disruption to word or letter processing? The origins of case-mixing effects. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.