What can we learn from learning models about sensitivity to letter-order in visual word recognition?

Recent research on the effects of letter transposition in Indo-European Languages has shown that readers are surprisingly tolerant of these manipulations in a range of tasks. This evidence has motivated the development of new computational models of reading that regard flexibility in positional coding to be a core and universal principle of the reading process. Here we argue that such approach does not capture cross-linguistic differences in transposed-letter effects, nor do they explain them. To address this issue, we investigated how a simple domain-general connectionist architecture performs in tasks such as letter-transposition and letter substitution when it had learned to process words in the context of different linguistic environments. The results show that in spite of of the neurobiological noise involved in registering letter-position in all languages, flexibility and inflexibility in coding letter order is also shaped by the statistical orthographic properties of words in a language, such as the relative prevalence of anagrams. Our learning model also generated novel predictions for targeted empirical research, demonstrating a clear advantage of learning models for studying visual word recognition.

[1]  Manuel Carreiras,et al.  Perceptual uncertainty is a property of the cognitive system , 2012, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[2]  M. Sigman,et al.  Opinion TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.9 No.7 July 2005 The neural code for written words: a proposal , 2022 .

[3]  Jeffrey S Bowers,et al.  Contrasting five different theories of letter position coding: evidence from orthographic similarity effects. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  J D Cohen,et al.  A network model of catecholamine effects: gain, signal-to-noise ratio, and behavior. , 1990, Science.

[5]  David C. Plaut,et al.  Strategic Control Over Rate of Processing in Word Reading: A Computational Investigation of the Tempo-Naming Task , 2000 .

[6]  Manuel Carreiras,et al.  Do transposed-letter similarity effects occur at a syllable level? , 2006, Experimental psychology.

[7]  Ram Frost,et al.  Towards a universal model of reading , 2012, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[8]  S. Lupker,et al.  Can CANISO activate CASINO? Transposed-letter similarity effects with nonadjacent letter positions ☆ , 2004 .

[9]  Ram Frost,et al.  Letter-transposition effects are not universal: The impact of transposing letters in Hebrew. , 2009, Journal of memory and language.

[10]  Jay G Rueckl,et al.  Connectionism and the Role of Morphology in Visual Word Recognition. , 2010, The mental lexicon.

[11]  Carol Whitney,et al.  SERIOL Reading , 2008 .

[12]  J. Bowers Masked priming: State of the Art , 2003 .

[13]  M. Carreiras,et al.  Do transposed-letter effects occur across lexeme boundaries? , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[14]  Manuel Perea,et al.  Transposed-Letter Confusability Effects in Masked Form Priming , 2003 .

[15]  Dušica Filipović Đurđević,et al.  An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. , 2011, Psychological review.

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

[17]  Dennis Norris,et al.  A stimulus sampling theory of letter identity and order , 2010 .

[18]  Ram Frost,et al.  A universal approach to modeling visual word recognition and reading: Not only possible, but also inevitable , 2012, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[19]  Marcin Szwed,et al.  Towards a universal neurobiological architecture for learning to read , 2012, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[20]  Dennis Norris,et al.  Orthographic processing is universal; it's what you do with it that's different , 2012, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[21]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. 1: foundations , 1986 .

[22]  S. Lupker,et al.  Sandwich priming: a method for overcoming the limitations of masked priming by reducing lexical competitor effects. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[23]  David C. Plaut,et al.  Are non-semantic morphological effects incompatible with a distributed connectionist approach to lexical processing? , 2000 .

[24]  Robert A. Jacobs,et al.  Increased rates of convergence through learning rate adaptation , 1987, Neural Networks.

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

[26]  D. Plaut Graded modality-specific specialisation in semantics: A computational account of optic aphasia , 2002, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[27]  Emmanuel Keuleers,et al.  What can we learn from monkeys about orthographic processing in humans ? , 2013 .

[28]  K. Forster,et al.  What can we learn from the morphology of Hebrew? A masked-priming investigation of morphological representation. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[29]  Peter M. Todd,et al.  Learning and connectionist representations , 1993 .

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

[31]  Avital Deutsch,et al.  The flexibility of letter-position flexibility: evidence from eye movements in reading Hebrew. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[32]  Sarah J. White,et al.  Raeding Wrods With Jubmled Lettres , 2006, Psychological science.

[33]  P. Zoccolotti,et al.  Visual perceptual limitations on letter position uncertainty in reading , 2012, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[34]  M. Carreiras,et al.  Do transposed-letter similarity effects occur at a morpheme level? Evidence for morpho-orthographic decomposition , 2007, Cognition.

[35]  D. Plaut,et al.  SD-squared revisited: reply to Coltheart, Tree, and Saunders (2010). , 2010, Psychological review.

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

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

[38]  Jonathan Grainger,et al.  A Dual-Route Approach to Orthographic Processing , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[39]  Philip T Quinlan,et al.  Orthographic processing in visual word identification , 1990, Cognitive Psychology.

[40]  Marcus Taft,et al.  Subsyllabic structure reflected in letter confusability effects in Korean word recognition , 2011, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[41]  Marc Brys,et al.  Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English , 2009 .

[42]  Manuel Perea,et al.  Please Scroll down for Article Language and Cognitive Processes beyond Alphabetic Orthographies: the Role of Form and Phonology in Transposition Effects in Katakana , 2022 .

[43]  Geoffrey E. Hinton Connectionist Learning Procedures , 1989, Artif. Intell..

[44]  Dennis Norris,et al.  Transposed-letter priming effect in Hebrew in the same–different task , 2012, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[45]  Jonathan Grainger,et al.  Transposed-Letter Effects Reveal Orthographic Processing in Baboons , 2013, Psychological science.

[46]  Max Coltheart,et al.  Computational modeling of reading in semantic dementia: comment on Woollams, Lambon Ralph, Plaut, and Patterson (2007). , 2010, Psychological review.

[47]  C. Gilbert,et al.  Improvement in visual sensitivity by changes in local context: Parallel studies in human observers and in V1 of alert monkeys , 1995, Neuron.

[48]  Colin J. Davis,et al.  The self-organising lexical acquisition and recognition (SOLAR) model of visual word recognition. , 2001 .

[49]  Jonathan Grainger,et al.  Cracking the orthographic code: An introduction , 2008 .

[50]  Ram Frost,et al.  Words with and without internal structure: What determines the nature of orthographic and morphological processing? , 2011, Cognition.

[51]  D. Rakison,et al.  Connectionist modeling of developmental changes in infancy: approaches, challenges, and contributions. , 2014, Psychological bulletin.

[52]  James L. McClelland,et al.  The parallel distributed processing approach to semantic cognition , 2003, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[53]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Learning internal representations by error propagation , 1986 .

[54]  J. Grainger,et al.  Letter position coding in printed word perception: Effects of repeated and transposed letters , 2004 .

[55]  Manuel Carreiras,et al.  The Search for an Input-coding Scheme: Transposed-letter Priming in Arabic , 2022 .

[56]  Emmanuel Keuleers,et al.  What Can We Learn From Monkeys About Orthographic Processing in Humans? A Reply to Ziegler et al. , 2013, Psychological science.

[57]  John McCarthy Command neurons and unitary behavior , 1978, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[58]  C. Gilbert,et al.  Learning to see: experience and attention in primary visual cortex , 2001, Nature Neuroscience.

[59]  Rebecca Treiman,et al.  The English Lexicon Project , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[60]  James L. McClelland The Place of Modeling in Cognitive Science , 2009, Top. Cogn. Sci..

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

[62]  Noam Siegelman,et al.  What Predicts Successful Literacy Acquisition in a Second Language? , 2013, Psychological science.

[63]  Jonathan Grainger,et al.  References and Notes , 2022 .

[64]  J. Grainger,et al.  Explaining word recognition, reading, the universe, and beyond: A modest proposal , 2012, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[65]  K. Forster,et al.  Masked priming with graphemically related forms: Repetition or partial activation? , 1987 .

[66]  K. Forster,et al.  Orthographic structure versus morphological structure: principles of lexical organization in a given language. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[67]  David C. Plaut,et al.  Structure and Function in the Lexical System: Insights from Distributed Models of Word Reading and Lexical Decision , 1997 .

[68]  Manuel Perea,et al.  Transposed-letter effects in reading: evidence from eye movements and parafoveal preview. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[69]  J Grainger,et al.  The role of letter identity and letter position in orthographic priming , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[70]  Dennis Norris,et al.  Transposed-letter priming of prelexical orthographic representations. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[71]  Marcus Taft,et al.  Are onsets and codas important in processing letter position? A comparison of TL effects in English and Korean , 2009 .

[72]  R. Harald Baayen,et al.  Learning from the Bible: computational modelling of the costs of letter transpositions and letter exchanges in reading Classical Hebrew and Modern English , 2012 .

[73]  Jay G Rueckl The limitations of the reverse-engineering approach to cognitive modeling. , 2012, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[74]  Manuel Perea,et al.  Do orthotactics and phonology constrain the transposed-letter effect? , 2008 .

[75]  David C. Plaut,et al.  Settling dynamics in distributed networks explain task differences in semantic ambiguity effects: Computational and behavioral evidence , 2008 .

[76]  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.

[77]  M. Zorzi,et al.  Two routes or one in reading aloud? A connectionist dual-process model. , 1998 .

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

[79]  Ram Frost,et al.  Cambridge University versus Hebrew University: The impact of letter transposition on reading English and Hebrew , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[80]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Letting structure emerge: connectionist and dynamical systems approaches to cognition , 2010, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.