Letter detection with rapid serial visual presentation: evidence against word superiority at feature extraction.

Letter detection typically is faster and more accurate in words than nonwords. Experiments 1, 2, and 3 tested the robustness of the word superiority effect using rapid serial visual presentation of words or nonwords. Letter detection was better in words even when the six-letter items were presented one after the other at rapid rates, up to about 10 items per second. At yet faster rates, however, the word advantage vanished. Experiments 4 and 5 tested whether word context aids feature extraction or the subsequent interpretation stage. In Experiment 4, subjects had to discriminate whether a mutilated A or mutilated E was present; in Experiment 5, subjects had merely to decide whether a mutilated A was present. Mutilation discrimination in Experiment 4 was better on words than nonwords; once a mutilation was detected, the word context revealed whether it was an A or an E. Mutilation detection in Experiment 5 did not differ between words and nonwords, though on words there was a response bias toward not reporting a mutilation as present. The results indicate that familiarity aids the interpretation process alone: Letters are not seen any more clearly or rapidly in words, but are simply filled in or inferred more accurately from the familiar context.

[1]  I. Fischled,et al.  Detection and identification of words and letters in simulated visual search of word lists , 1975, Memory & cognition.

[2]  P A Kolers,et al.  Bounding of letter sequences and the integration of visually presented words. , 1972, Acta psychologica.

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

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

[5]  D. Massaro,et al.  Visual information and redundancy in reading. , 1973, Journal of experimental psychology.

[6]  L. E. Krueger,et al.  Letter search through words and nonwords: The effect of fixed, absent, or mutilated targets , 1976, Memory & cognition.

[7]  L. E. Krueger Search time in a redundant visual display. , 1970, Journal of experimental psychology.

[8]  D. Massaro Perception of letters, words, and nonwords. , 1973, Journal of experimental psychology.

[9]  D. Broadbent,et al.  Some further data concerning the word frequency effect , 1975 .

[10]  Amos Spector,et al.  The word superiority effect: A comparison between restricted and unrestricted alternative set , 1977 .

[11]  U. Neisser Decision-time without reaction-time: Experiments in visual scanning. , 1963 .

[12]  U NEISSER,et al.  Searching for Ten Targets Simultaneously , 1963, Perceptual and motor skills.

[13]  G. Sperling,et al.  Extremely Rapid Visual Search: The Maximum Rate of Scanning Letters for the Presence of a Numeral , 1971, Science.

[14]  Steven W. Keele,et al.  Attention and human performance , 1973 .

[15]  D W Massaro,et al.  Letter information and orthographic context in word perception. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  D. Lawrence Temporal numerosity estimates for word lists , 1971 .

[17]  W. B. Pillsbury A study in apperception , 1897 .

[18]  John S. Robinson Familiar Patterns Are No Easier to See than Novel Ones , 1969 .

[19]  M. Potter Meaning in visual search. , 1975, Science.

[20]  Leo Postman,et al.  THE PERCEPTION OF ERROR , 1951 .

[21]  S. Coren,et al.  SUBJECTIVE CONTOURS AND APPARENT DEPTH , 2005 .

[22]  L. E. Krueger Familiarity effects in visual information processing. , 1975, Psychological bulletin.

[23]  L. E. Krueger The word-superiority effect: Is its locus visual-spatial or verbal? , 1975 .

[24]  D G Purcell,et al.  Visual angle and the word superiority effect , 1978, Memory & cognition.

[25]  Lester E. Krueger,et al.  Visual comparison in a redundant display , 1970 .

[26]  W. Estes The Locus of Inferential and Perceptual Processes in Letter Identification. , 1975 .

[27]  Geoffrey R. Loftus,et al.  Acquisition of information from rapidly presented verbal and nonverbal stimuli , 1974, Memory & cognition.

[28]  Kenneth I. Forster,et al.  Visual perception of rapidly presented word sequences of varying complexity , 1970 .

[29]  James C Johnston,et al.  A test of the Sophisticated Guessing Theory of word perception , 1978, Cognitive Psychology.

[30]  J. Gibson,et al.  Perceptual learning; differentiation or enrichment? , 1955, Psychological review.

[31]  B Earhard,et al.  Perception and retention of familiar and unfamiliar material. , 1968, Journal of experimental psychology.

[32]  E Lakner,et al.  Recognition of numerals inbedded in words, pronounceable nonwords, and random sequences of letters. , 1974, Journal of experimental psychology.

[33]  D. Lawrence Two studies of visual search for word targets with controlled rates of presentation* , 1971 .