Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 428–433 | Cite as

The GO model: A reconsideration of the role of structural units in guiding and organizing text on line

  • Seth N. Greenberg
  • Alice F. Healy
  • Asher Koriat
  • Hamutal Kreiner
Theoretical and Review Articles

Abstract

Healy (1994) and Koriat and Greenberg (1994) offered different theoretical accounts of the missingletter effect (MLE) in the letter-detection task, whereby a disproportionate number of letter-detection errors occur in frequent function words. Healy emphasized identification processes, whereas Koriat and Greenberg viewed the structural role of the embedding word to be crucial. Recent research suggests that neither position alone can account for the complete set of observations pertaining to the MLE. The present paper offers a theoretical integration of these competing explanations of letter detection in terms of a GO (guidance-organization) model of reading. This model specifies how structural processing of connected text helps guide eye movements to semantically informative parts of the text, enabling readers to achieve on-line fluency.

References

  1. Aaronson, D., &Ferres, S. (1983). Lexical categories and reading tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,9, 675–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balota, D. A., Pollatsek, A., &Rayner, K. (1985). The interaction of contextual constraints and parafoveal visual information in reading.Cognitive Psychology,17, 364–390.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bock, K. (1990). Structure in language: Creating form in talk.American Psychologist,45, 1221–1236.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brysbaert, M., &Vitu, F. (1998). Word skipping: Implications for theories of eye movement control in reading. In G. Underwood (Ed.),Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 125–147). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carpenter, P. A., &Just, M. A. (1983). What your eyes do while your mind is reading. In K. Rayner (Ed.),Eye movements in reading: Perceptual and language processes (pp. 275–307). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Corcoran, D. W. J. (1966). An acoustic factor in letter cancellation.Nature,210, 658.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deutsch, A., Frost, R., Pollatsek, A., &Rayner, K. (2000). Early morphological effects in word recognition in Hebrew: Evidence from parafoveal preview benefit.Language & Cognitive Processes,15, 487–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Drewnowski, A., &Healy, A. F. (1977). Detection errors onthe andand: Evidence for reading units larger than the word.Memory & Cognition,5, 636–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Drewnowski, A., &Healy, A. F. (1980). Missing -ing in reading: Letter detection errors in word endings.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,19, 247–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Farrid, M., &Grainger, J. (1996). How initial fixation position influences visual word recognition: A comparison of French and Arabic.Brain & Language,53, 351–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferreira, F. (1993). Creation of prosody during sentence production.Psychological Review,100, 233–253.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gautier, V., O’Regan, K. J., &Le Gargasson, J. F. (2000). “Theskipping” revisited in French: Programming saccades to skip the article “les.”Vision Research,40, 2517–2531.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Greenberg, S. N., Inhoff, A. W., & Koriat, A. (2004).Eye movements in response to frequency and function. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
  14. Greenberg, S. N., &Koriat, A. (1991). The missing-letter effect for common function words depends on their linguistic function in the phrase.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 1051–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greenberg, S. N., Koriat, A., &Vellutino, F. R. (1998). Age changes in the missing-letter effect reflect the reader’s growing ability to extract structure from text.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,69, 175–198.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haber, R. N., &Schindler, R. M. (1981). Error in proofreading: Evidence of syntactic control of letter processing?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,7, 573–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hadley, J. A., &Healy, A. F. (1991). When are reading units larger than the letter? Refinement of the unitization reading model.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 1062–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Healy, A. F. (1976). Detection errors on the wordthe: Evidence for reading units larger than letters.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,2, 235–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Healy, A. F. (1994). Letter detection: A window to unitization and other cognitive processes in reading text.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,1, 333–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Healy, A. F., Conboy, G. L., &Drewnowski, A. (1987). Characterizing the processing units of reading: Effects of intra- and interword spaces in a letter detection task. In B. K. Britton & S. M. Glynn (Eds.),Psychology of reading and reading instruction (pp. 279–296). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Healy, A. F., &Cunningham, T. F. (1992). A developmental evaluation of the role of word shape in word recognition.Memory & Cognition,20, 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Healy, A. F., &Drewnowski, A. (1983). Investigating the boundaries of reading units: Letter detection in misspelled words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,9, 413–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Healy, A. F., Fendrich, D. W., &Proctor, J. D. (1990). Acquisition and retention of a letter-detection skill.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 270–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Healy, A. F., Oliver, W. L., &McNamara, T. P. (1987). Detecting letters in continuous text: Effects of display size.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,13, 279–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hyönä, J., &Pollatsek, A. (1998). Reading Finnish compound words: Eye fixations are affected by component morphemes.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,24, 1612–1627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Inhoff, A. W. (1989). Lexical access during eye fixations in reading: Are word access codes used to integrate lexical information across interword fixations?Journal of Memory & Language,28, 444–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Inhoff, A. W., Briihl, D., &Schwartz, J. (1996). Compound word effects differ in reading, on-line naming, and delayed naming tasks.Memory & Cognition,24, 466–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Just, M. A., &Carpenter, P. A.(1987).The psychology of reading and language comprehension. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  29. Kimball, J. (1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language.Cognition,2, 15–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Koriat, A., &Greenberg, S. N. (1991). Syntactic control of letter detection: Evidence from English and Hebrew nonwords.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 1035–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Koriat, A., &Greenberg, S. N. (1994). The extraction of phrase structure during reading: Evidence from letter detection errors.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,1, 345–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Koriat, A., &Greenberg, S. N. (1996). The enhancement effect in letter detection: Further evidence for the structural model of reading.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 1184–1195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Koriat, A., Greenberg, S. N., &Goldshmid, Y. (1991). The missingletter effect in Hebrew: Word frequency or word function?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 66–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Koriat, A., Greenberg, S. N., &Kreiner, H. (2002). The extraction of structure during reading: Evidence from reading prosody.Memory & Cognition,30, 270–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., &Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution.Psychological Review,101, 676–703.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mohr, B., Pulvermüller, F., &Zaidel, E. (1994). Lexical decision after left, right and bilateral presentation of function words, content words and non-words: Evidence for interhemispheric interaction.Neuropsychologia,32, 105–124.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moravcsik, J. E., &Healy, A. F. (1995). The effect of meaning on letter detection.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 82–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moravcsik, J. E., &Healy, A. F. (1998). Effect of syntactic role and syntactic prominence on letter detection.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,5, 96–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. O’Regan, K. (1979). Saccade size control in reading: Evidence for the linguistic control hypothesis.Perception & Psychophysics,25, 501–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Perfetti, C. A. (1985).Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Perfetti, C. A. (1989). There are generalized abilities and one of them is reading. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.),Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 307–335). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. Rayner, K., &Pollatsek, A. (1989).The psychology of reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  43. Rayner, K., Raney, G. E., &Pollatsek, A. (1995). Eye movements and discourse processing. In R. F. Lorch, Jr. & E. J. O’Brien (Eds.),Sources of coherence in reading (pp. 9–35). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  44. Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D. L., &Rayner, K. (1998). Toward a model of eye movement control in reading.Psychological Review,105, 125–157.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Saint-Aubin, J., &Klein, R. M. (2001). Influence of parafoveal processing on the missing-letter effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,27, 318–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schmauder, A. R., Morris, R. K., &Poynor, D. V. (2000). Lexical processing and text integration of function and content words: Evidence from priming and eye fixations.Memory & Cognition,28, 1098–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schneider, V. I., &Healy, A. F. (1993). Detecting phonemes and letters in text: Interactions between different types and levels of processes.Memory & Cognition,21, 739–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seth N. Greenberg
    • 1
  • Alice F. Healy
    • 2
  • Asher Koriat
    • 3
  • Hamutal Kreiner
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUnion CollegeSchenectady
  2. 2.University of ColoradoBoulder
  3. 3.University of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations