Houpt, Joseph W.

Townsend, James T.

English

CORE

Wright State University CORE Scholar Psychology Faculty Publications Psychology 4-16-2011 A New Perspective on Visual Word Processing Efficiency Joseph W. Houpt Wright State University - Main Campus, joseph.houpt@wright.edu James T. Townsend Follow this and additional works at: https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/psychology  Part of the Cognition and Perception Commons, Cognitive Psychology Commons, Quantitative Psychology Commons, and the Statistical Models Commons Repository Citation Houpt, J. W., & Townsend, J. T. (2011). A New Perspective on Visual Word Processing Efficiency. . https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/psychology/18 This Presentation is brought to you for free and open access by the Psychology at CORE Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Psychology Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of CORE Scholar. For more information, please contact library-corescholar@wright.edu. A New Perspective on Visual Word Processing Efficiency Joseph W. Houpt James T. Townsend INDIANA UNIVERSITY BLOOBIIHGTON Midwest Cognitive Science Meeting Michigan State University April 16, 2011 Previous Findings .,. Letters in words are read faster than letters in random seqUenceS (Cattell, 1886; Erdmann & Dodge, 1898) .,. Target letters are found faster in words (Kreuger, 1970) E o r D ECARo r D BLERor F Previous Findings E o r D ECARo r D BLERor F .,. 	 Letters in words are read faster than letters in random SequenceS (Cattell , 1886; Erdmann & Dodge, 1898) .,. 	 Target letters are found faster in words {Kreuger, 1970) .,. 	 Letters in words are more accurately perceived than individual letters. ( Reicher, 1969; Wheeler, 1970) .,. 	 Letters in pronounceable non-words (pseudowords) are more accurately perceived than unpronouncea ble sequences of letters. .,. 	 Letters in pseudowords are more accurately perceived than single letters. {Aderman & Smith , 1971 ; Baron & Thursto n , 1973 ; Ca rr et at. , 1978 ; McClelland & Johnston, 1977 ) What's missing? ~ 	There is little evidence of the word superiority effect from the response time domain, and even evidence Of WOrd inferiority (e.g., Massaro & Cohen, 1994; Allen & Emerson, 1991). What's missing? ~ 	There is little evidence of the word superiority effect from the response time domain, and even evidence Of WOrd inferiority (e.g., Massaro & Cohen, 1994; Allen & Emerson, 1991). ~ 	Even in the accuracy domain, there is some disagreement about the nature of the word superiority effect ~ 	 The surprise inefficiency in the accuracy domain. (Pelli et al., 2003) Word l ength ~ett"'"') 101 ~ Models of word recognition that are independent and parallel but still account for the word . . superiority effect are possible. "! ·'rsJw O.D1 : - .. 1 Word l ength ~et1 er!1) 10 The Task Adapted from Goldstone (2000) and Blaha and Townsend (Under Revisio n) .,.. The string task ~ Control for guessing ~ Both target and distractors are same class ~ Ensure each character is (at least partially) perceived ~ One distractor for each posit ion The Task Adapted from Goldstone (2000) and Blaha and Townsend (Under Revisio n) .,.. The string task ~ Control for guessing ~ Both target and distractors are same class ~ Ensure each character is (at least partially) perceived ~ One distractor for each position .,.. The single character task Instructions ~ Used to determine processing rates of characters in isolation Example stimulus c The Task Adapted from Goldstone (2000) and Blaha and Townsend (Under Revisio n) Instructions Example stimulus c .,.. The string task ~ Control for guessing ~ Both target and distractors are same class ~ Ensure each character is (at least partially) perceived ~ One distractor for each position .,.. The single character task ~ Used to determine processing rates of characters in isolation .,.. Stimuli are briefly shown and participant must identify whether it is a target or distractor . .,.. High contrast, post-masking, lOOms presentation time. The Task 500 ms + 400 ms CARE 100 ms 1900 ms Defining a Baseline P{RTcare <::: t} = P{ RTc <::: t , RTa <::: t, RTr <::: t , RTe <::: t} Defining a Baseline P{RTcare <::: t} = P{RTc <::: t , RTa <::: t, RTr <::: t , RTe <::: t} ~ If we assume unlimited capacity, independent, parallel processing of letters (UCIP), Fcare(t) = Fc(t)Fa(t)Fr(t)Fe(t) Defining a Baseline P{RTcare <::: t} = P{ RTc <::: t , RTa <::: t, RTr <::: t , RTe <::: t} ~ If we assume unlimited capacity, independent , parallel processing of letters (UCIP) , Fcare(t) Fe (t) Fa (t) Fr (t) Fe (t) In ( Fcare) = In ( FcFaFrFe) Defining a Baseline P{RTcare <::: t} = P{ RTc <::: t , RTa <::: t, RTr <::: t , RTe <::: t} ~ If we assume unlimited capacity, independent, parallel processing of letters (UCIP) , Fcare(t) Fe( t) Fa( t) Fr( t)Fe( t) ln(Fcare) In( FcFaFrFe) ln(Fc) + ln(Fa) + ln(Fr) + ln(Fe) Kcare Kc + Ka + Kr + Ke Defining a Baseline P{RTcare <::: t} = P{RTc <::: t , RTa <::: t, RTr <::: t , RTe <::: t} ~ If we assume unlimited capacity, independent, parallel processing of letters (UCIP), Fcare (t) Fe( t) Fa( t) Fr( t)Fe( t) ln(Fcare) In( FcFaFrFe) ln(Fc) + ln(Fa) + ln(Fr) + ln(Fe) Kcare Kc + Ka + Kr + Ke C(t) Kc + Ka + Kr + Ke = l Kcare L Kcharacter C(t) Kstring Example Capacity Data Workload capactty \ The Interpretation Workload capacity coefficients different from 1 imply a violation of at least one of the assumptions of the UCIP model. ~ Independence ~ Inhibitory interaction leads to lower values ~ Facilitatory interaction leads to higher values ~ Parallel ~ Serial leads to lower values ~ Coactive leads to higher values ~ Unlimited Capacity ~ Limited resources lead to lower values ~ More resources for more processes leads to high values ( Townsend & Wenger, 2004) The Stimuli ....... Q) ~ ~ U1.._ 0 ....... u CIJ.._ ....... U1 0 Word care bare cure cave card c b a u r v e d Pseudoword lerb nerb I arb lemb lerf I n e a r m b f Random rlkf vlkf rtkf rlhf rlkj r v I t k h f j Mean Level Resu Its ~ Significant effect of condition on accuracy and correct RT (p < .001) Participant RT Accuracy 1 2 w w (P p R) R w (P p w R R) 3 4 5 (W(W w R p p P) R) R (W(W w P) p p R R) R 6 7 w w p (P R R) (W w (P) p R) R 8 9 10 11 12 (W (P w w (W P) W) (R p P) R R P) R R (P (W (W w (W W) (P) (R) (P P) R R) P) R) R Mean Level Resu Its ~ Significant effect of condition on accuracy and correct RT (p < .001) Participant RT Accuracy 1 2 w w (P p R) R w (P p w R R) 3 4 5 (W(W w R p p P) R) R (W(W w P) p p R R) R 6 7 w w p (P R R) (W w (P) p R) R 8 9 10 11 12 (W (P w w (W P) W) (R p P) R R P) R R (P (W (W w (W W) (P) (R) (P P) R R) P) R) R ~ This does not imply an ordering of efficiency (some letters may be faster than others) Individual Data : Graphic Participant 1 Participant 2 Participant 3 Participant 4 Participant 5 400 800 1400 400 800 1400 400 800 1400 400 800 1400 400 800 1400 Participant 6 Participant 7 Participant 8 Participant 9 Participant 10 400 800 1400 400 800 1400 400 800 1400 400 800 1400 400 800 1400 Participant 11 Participant 12 -- Word -- Pseudo -- Random -- Unlimited 400 800 1400 400 800 1400 Group Data: Graphic Word Pseudo Random 600 800 100) 12(0 1400 600 800 'KXX) 1200 1400 600 800 100) 1200 1400 Tim_., T ime 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ZPseudo Z Statistic Participant 5.47 6.44 -0 .874 3.84 4.35 13.0 4.62 9.98 15.1 10.6 8.89 -1.84 Zword *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2.40 2.36 10.5 8.33 5.54 8.99 4.38 11.0 13.9 9.43 8.89 -3.70 * * *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ZRandom 3.91 *** -1.77 4.43 *** 3.60 ** -3.67 ** -0.035 -2.68 ** 0.779 5.24 *** 3.89 *** -0.771 -5.33 *** * < .025; ** < .005; * * * < .0005 Z Statistic Participant Zword ZPseudo ZRandom 1 5.47 *** 2.40 * 3.91 *** 2 6.44 *** 2.36 * -1.77 3 -0 .874 10.5 *** 4.43 *** 4 3.84 *** 8.33 *** 3.60 ** 5 4.35 *** 5.54 *** -3.67 ** 6 13.0 *** 8.99 *** -0.035 7 4.62 *** 4.38 *** -2.68 ** 8 9.98 *** 11.0 *** 0.779 9 15.1 *** 13.9 *** 5.24 *** 10 10.6 *** 9.43 *** 3.89 *** 11 8.89 *** 8.89 *** -0.771 12 -1.84 -3.70 *** -5.33 *** ~ Word > Random *** ~ Pseudoword > Random *** ~ Pseudoword > Word * < .025; ** < .005; * * * < .0005 Conclusions Response Time Word Superiority Effect ~ We have ruled out the unlimited capacity, independent parallel model of word processing (for most participants) ~ Participants are more efficient at perceiving letters in words than individually ~ Participants are more efficient at perceiving words than non-words Conclusions Response Time Word Superiority Effect ~ We have ruled out the unlimited capacity, independent parallel model of word processing (for most participants) ~ Participants are more efficient at perceiving letters in words than individually ~ Participants are more efficient at perceiving words than non-words Response Time Pseudoword Superiority Effect ~ Unlimited capacity, independent parallel model was also falsified for most participants on pseudowords. ~ Participants are more efficient at perceiving letters in words than individually ~ Participants are more efficient at perceiving pseudowords than non-words Future Directions ~ Sensitivity to 'holistic ' manipulations ~ Compare capacity for upside words and pseudowords. ~ Examine effect of crowding on C(t). Future Directions ~ Sensitivity to 'holistic ' manipulations ~ Compare capacity for upside words and pseudowords. ~ Examine effect of crowding on C(t). ~ Low accuracy conditions ~ Connect current findings with standard accuracy based results. Future Directions ~ Sensitivity to 'holistic ' manipulations ~ Compare capacity for upside words and pseudowords. ~ Examine effect of crowding on C(t). ~ Low accuracy conditions ~ Connect current findings with standard accuracy based results. ~ Clinical Populations ~ Dyslexic: Better methodology for characterizing the deficit. ~ High Functioning Autistic: Test theory of dysfunctions in holistic processing. This work was supported by NIH-NIMH MH 05771707 and AFOSR FA9550-07-1-0078 awarded to JTT. The Details ~ 12 participants, 10 Females and 2 Males, Ages 19-34, native English speakers ~ Participants reported ~ No problems reading English ~ No reading disorders ~ Normal or corrected to normal vision ~ 10 Sessions, 2 of each condition, lasting between 45 and 60 minutes ~ Each block begins with 40 practice trials, then 100 targets and 100 d istractors were presented in random order. ~ The character or characters were written in black in 29pt Courier onto a gray (200) background, then doubled in size. ~ Stimuli shown for lOOms followed by a mask. Aderman, D., & Smith, E. E. (1971). Expectancy as a determinant of functional units in perceptual recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 2, 117-129. Allen, P A., & Emerson, P L. (1991). Holism revisited Evidence for parallel independent word-level and letter-level processors during word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 489-511. Baron, J., & Thurston, I. (1973). An analysis of the word-superiority effect. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 207-228. Blaha, L. M., & Townsend, J. T. (Under Revision). The capacity of configura I learning: Perceptual unitization as a mechanism for the development of configura I perceptual representations. Carr, T. H., Davidson, B. J., & Hawkins, H. L. (1978). Perceptual flexibility in word recognition: Strategies affect orthographic computation but not lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and performance, 4, 674-690. Cattell, J. M. (1886). The time it takes to see and name objects. Mind, 11, 63-65. Erdmann, B., & Dodge, R. (1898). Psychologische untersuchungen uber das lesen auf experimenteller grundlage. Halle. Goldstone, R. L. (2000). Unitization during category learning. Journal of experimental psychology Human perception and performance, 26, 86-112. Massaro, D. W, & Cohen, M. M. (1994). Visual, orthographic, phonological, and lexical influences in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 1107-1128. McClelland, J. L., & Johnston, J. C (1977). The role of familiar units in perception of words and nonwords. Perception and Psychophysics, 22, 249-261. Pelli, 	D. G., Farell, B., & Moore, D. C (2003). The remarkable inefficiency of word recognition. Nature, 423, 752-756. Reicher, G. M. (1969). Perceptual recognition as a function of meaningfulness of stimulus material. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 274-280. Townsend, J. T., & Wenger, M. (2004). A theory of interactive parallel processing: New capacity measures and predictions for a response time inequality series. Psychological Review, 111, 1003-1035. Wheeler, D. D. (1970). Processes in word recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 1, 59-85. 

A New Perspective on Visual Word Processing Efficiency

https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&amp;context=psychology

A New Perspective on Visual Word Processing Efficiency

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CORE