The First Letter Position Effect in Visual Word Recognition: The Role of Spatial Attention

A prominent question in visual word recognition is whether letters within a word are processed in parallel or in a left to right sequence. Although most contemporary models posit parallel processing, this notion seems at odds with well-established serial position effects in word identification that indicate preferential processing for the initial letter. The present study reports 4 experiments designed to further probe the locus of the first position processing advantage. The paradigm involved masked target words presented for short durations and required participants to subsequently select from 2 alternatives, 1 which was identical to the target and 1 that differed by a single letter. Experiment 1 manipulated the case between the target and the alternatives to ensure that previous evidence for a first position effect was not due to simple perceptual matching. The results continued to yield a robust first position advantage. Experiment 2 attempted to eliminate postperceptual decision processes as the explanatory mechanism by presenting single letters as targets and requiring participants to select an entire word that contained the target letter at different positions. Here the first position advantage was eliminated, suggesting postperceptual decision processes do not underlie the effect. The final 2 experiments presented masked stimuli either all vertically (Experiment 3) or randomly intermixed vertical and horizontal orientation (Experiment 4). In both cases, a robust first position advantage was still obtained. The authors consider alternative interpretations of this effect and suggest that these results are consistent with a rapid deployment of spatial attention to the beginning of a target string which occurs poststimulus onset.

[1]  Evan F. Risko,et al.  Spatial attention as a necessary preliminary to early processes in reading. , 2005, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[2]  P. Merikle,et al.  On the selective effects of a patterned masking stimulus. , 1971, Canadian journal of psychology.

[3]  Keith E. Stanovich,et al.  Assessing phonological awareness in kindergarten children: Issues of task comparability , 1984 .

[4]  James S. Adelman,et al.  Letters in Words Are Read Simultaneously, Not in Left-to-Right Sequence , 2010, Psychological science.

[5]  Arthur M. Jacobs,et al.  Letter legibility and visual word recognition , 1998, Memory & cognition.

[6]  Derek Besner,et al.  Automaticity revisited: when print doesn't activate semantics , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[7]  Jonathan Grainger,et al.  Effects of stimulus font and size on masked repetition priming: An event-related potentials (ERP) investigation , 2008, Language and cognitive processes.

[8]  S. Gori,et al.  A Causal Link between Visual Spatial Attention and Reading Acquisition , 2012, Current Biology.

[9]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 2. The contextual enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of the model. , 1982, Psychological review.

[10]  J. Ziegler,et al.  A developmental investigation of the first-letter advantage. , 2016, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[11]  Colin J Davis,et al.  The spatial coding model of visual word identification. , 2010, Psychological review.

[12]  D. Bates,et al.  Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4 , 2014, 1406.5823.

[13]  J. Grainger,et al.  Crowding affects letters and symbols differently. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[14]  Rebecca L Johnson,et al.  The importance of the first and last letter in words during sentence reading. , 2012, Acta psychologica.

[15]  Manuel Perea,et al.  The overlap model: a model of letter position coding. , 2008, Psychological review.

[16]  Jonathan Grainger,et al.  Modeling letter position coding in printed word perception , 2004 .

[17]  R. Desimone,et al.  Attention Increases Sensitivity of V4 Neurons , 2000, Neuron.

[18]  Jonathan Grainger,et al.  Serial position effects in the identification of letters, digits, and symbols. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[19]  G. McConkie,et al.  Integrating information across eye movements , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[20]  Derek Besner,et al.  Spatial attention modulates feature crosstalk in visual word processing , 2010, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[21]  M Mason,et al.  Recognition time for letters and nonletters: effects of serial position, array size, and processing order. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[22]  James S Adelman,et al.  Letters in time and retinotopic space. , 2011, Psychological review.

[23]  D. Barr,et al.  Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. , 2013, Journal of memory and language.

[24]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Understanding normal and impaired word reading: computational principles in quasi-regular domains. , 1996, Psychological review.

[25]  James A. Bovaird,et al.  On the use of multilevel modeling as an alternative to items analysis in psycholinguistic research , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[26]  Jonathan Grainger,et al.  A Vision of Reading , 2016, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[27]  James J. Masanz,et al.  LANGUAGE PROCESSING , 1998 .

[28]  Michele Scaltritti,et al.  Are all letters really processed equally and in parallel? Further evidence of a robust first letter advantage. , 2013, Acta psychologica.

[29]  Jonathan Grainger,et al.  Serial position effects in the identification of letters, digits, symbols, and shapes in peripheral vision. , 2012, Acta psychologica.

[30]  G. Humphreys,et al.  The Use of Abstract Graphemic Information in Lexical Access , 1981 .

[31]  C. Whitney How the brain encodes the order of letters in a printed word: The SERIOL model and selective literature review , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[32]  Jonathan Grainger,et al.  Letter visibility and the viewing position effect in visual word recognition , 2003, Perception & psychophysics.

[33]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability , 1973 .

[34]  E. Lovelace Attributes that come to mind in the TOT state. , 1987 .

[35]  J. Grainger,et al.  Flank to the left, flank to the right: Testing the modified receptive field hypothesis of letter-specific crowding , 2013 .

[36]  K. Rayner Eye Guidance in Reading: Fixation Locations within Words , 1979, Perception.

[37]  James J. Clark,et al.  Word ambiguity and the optimal viewing position in reading , 1999, Vision Research.

[38]  J. C. Johnston,et al.  Perception of Letters in Words: Seek Not and Ye Shall Find , 1974, Science.

[39]  L. Abrams,et al.  Does priming specific syllables during tip-of-the-tongue states facilitate word retrieval in older adults? , 2002, Psychology and aging.

[40]  J. C. Johnston,et al.  The role of spatial attention in visual word processing. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[41]  K. Forster,et al.  Forty-five years after Broadbent (1958): still no identification without attention. , 2004, Psychological review.

[42]  H. H. Clark The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. , 1973 .

[43]  C. Mann,et al.  A Practical Treatise on Diseases of the Skin , 1889, Atlanta Medical and Surgical Journal (1884).

[44]  D. Bates,et al.  Parsimonious Mixed Models , 2015, 1506.04967.

[45]  William Lidwell,et al.  Serial Position Effects , 2019 .

[46]  James L. McClelland,et al.  A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. , 1989, Psychological review.

[47]  Marco Zorzi,et al.  Beyond single syllables: Large-scale modeling of reading aloud with the Connectionist Dual Process (CDP++) model , 2010, Cognitive Psychology.

[48]  D. Green,et al.  Detecting targets in letter and non-letter arrays. , 1982, Canadian journal of psychology.

[49]  M Coltheart,et al.  DRC: a dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. , 2001, Psychological review.

[50]  Alan S. Brown,et al.  A review of the tip-of-the-tongue experience. , 1991, Psychological bulletin.