Don't words come easy? A psychophysical exploration of word superiority

Words are made of letters, and yet sometimes it is easier to identify a word than a single letter. This word superiority effect (WSE) has been observed when written stimuli are presented very briefly or degraded by visual noise. We compare performance with letters and words in three experiments, to explore the extents and limits of the WSE. Using a carefully controlled list of three letter words, we show that a WSE can be revealed in vocal reaction times even to undegraded stimuli. With a novel combination of psychophysics and mathematical modeling, we further show that the typical WSE is specifically reflected in perceptual processing speed: single words are simply processed faster than single letters. Intriguingly, when multiple stimuli are presented simultaneously, letters are perceived more easily than words, and this is reflected both in perceptual processing speed and visual short term memory (VSTM) capacity. So, even if single words come easy, there is a limit to the WSE.

[1]  Isabel Gauthier,et al.  A visual short-term memory advantage for objects of expertise. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[2]  W. Prinzmetal The word-superiority effect does not require a T-scope , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[3]  S. Dehaene,et al.  Language-specific tuning of visual cortex? Functional properties of the Visual Word Form Area. , 2002, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[4]  Alexander P. Leff,et al.  Too Little, Too Late: Reduced Visual Span and Speed Characterize Pure Alexia , 2009, Cerebral cortex.

[5]  James S. Adelman,et al.  Visual word recognition, volume 1 : models and methods, orthography and phonology , 2012 .

[6]  Christian Gerlach,et al.  Visual processing in pure alexia: A case study , 2010, Cortex.

[7]  A. Meyers Reading , 1999, Language Teaching.

[8]  S. Dehaene,et al.  The unique role of the visual word form area in reading , 2011, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[9]  John Duncan,et al.  Attentional functions of parietal and frontal cortex. , 2005, Cerebral cortex.

[10]  C. Bundesen,et al.  A neural theory of visual attention: bridging cognition and neurophysiology. , 2005, Psychological review.

[11]  M. Carrasco,et al.  The eccentricity effect: Target eccentricity affects performance on conjunction searches , 1995, Perception & psychophysics.

[12]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  The Capacity of Visual Short-Term Memory is Set Both by Visual Information Load and by Number of Objects , 2004, Psychological science.

[13]  George Sperling,et al.  The information available in brief visual presentations. , 1960 .

[14]  S Lehéricy,et al.  The visual word form area: spatial and temporal characterization of an initial stage of reading in normal subjects and posterior split-brain patients. , 2000, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[15]  Stanislas Dehaene,et al.  Reading normal and degraded words: Contribution of the dorsal and ventral visual pathways , 2008, NeuroImage.

[16]  Charles W. Eriksen,et al.  Retinal locus and acuity in visual information processing , 1977 .

[17]  T. R. Jordan,et al.  What do lateralized displays tell us about visual word perception? A cautionary indication from the word-letter effect , 2004, Neuropsychologia.

[18]  Timothy R. Jordan,et al.  Word superiority over isolated letters: The neglected case of forward masking , 1994, Memory & cognition.

[19]  J. Grainger,et al.  Does the huamn mnid raed wrods as a wlohe? , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[20]  Jonathan Grainger,et al.  The front end of visual word recognition , 2012 .

[21]  Timothy R. Jordan,et al.  Word Superiority Over Isolated Letters: The Neglected Role of Flanking Mask Contours , 1993 .

[22]  D. Plaut,et al.  A LITERATURE REVIEW AND NEW DATA SUPPORTING AN INTERACTIVE ACCOUNT OF LETTER-BY-LETTER READING. , 1998, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[23]  Isabel Gauthier,et al.  Letter processing in the visual system: Different activation patterns for single letters and strings , 2005, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

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

[25]  Denis G. Pelli,et al.  The remarkable inefficiency of word recognition , 2003, Nature.

[26]  Claus Bundesen,et al.  Generalizing parametric models by introducing trial-by-trial parameter variability: The case of TVA , 2011 .

[27]  Guinevere F. Eden,et al.  Attention to single letters activates left extrastriate cortex , 2004, NeuroImage.

[28]  Mariano Sigman,et al.  Hierarchical Coding of Letter Strings in the Ventral Stream: Dissecting the Inner Organization of the Visual Word-Form System , 2007, Neuron.

[29]  C. Price,et al.  The Interactive Account of ventral occipitotemporal contributions to reading , 2011, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[30]  Word-superiority in pure alexia , 2013 .

[31]  J. Vanrie,et al.  Effects of spatial separation between stimuli in whole report from brief visual displays , 2007, Perception & psychophysics.

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

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

[34]  G. A. Miller THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

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

[36]  Claus Bundesen,et al.  Prompt but inefficient: nicotine differentially modulates discrete components of attention , 2011, Psychopharmacology.

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

[38]  M. Sullivan,et al.  Too little, too late. , 1999, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[39]  James L. McClelland,et al.  The role of familiar units in perception of words and nonwords , 1977 .

[40]  C. Bundesen A theory of visual attention. , 1990, Psychological review.

[41]  H. I. S. Thirlaway,et al.  Too little, too late , 1976, Nature.

[42]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: part 1.: an account of basic findings , 1988 .