Abstract
A visual presentation procedure is introduced that presents target words followed by a dynamic mask until recognition. This form of stimulus degradation prolongs the word recognition process. Differences in word recognition latencies—which are usually quite small—are magnified, and thus can be more easily observed. The results of two experiments on the Internet with a total of 141 participants establish the task’s ability to magnify differences in word recognition latencies stemming from word familiarity (Experiment 1) and word prototypicality (Experiment 2). Both factors interact with stimulus degradation, but at different presentation intervals; these results are discussed as evidence for comparing models of word recognition. The new procedure can be used for assessing individual differences, such as implicit motives and self-focused attention. Further applications are discussed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Becker, C. A. (1976). Allocation of attention during visual word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,2, 556–566.
Becker, C. A. (1979). Semantic context and word frequency effects in visual word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,5, 252–259.
Becker, C. A. (1980). Semantic context effects in visual word recognition: An analysis of semantic strategies.Memory & Cognition,8, 493–512.
Becker, C. A., &Killion, T. H. (1977). Interaction of visual and cognitive effects in word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,3, 389–401.
Benjafield, J., &Muckenheim, R. (1989). Dates of entry and measures of imagery, concreteness, goodness, and familiarity for 1,046 words sampled from theOxford English Dictionary.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,21, 31–52.
Besner, D., &Smith, M. C. (1992). Models of visual word recognition: When obscuring the stimulus yields a clearer view.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 468–482.
Birnbaum, M. H. (2001). A Web-based program of research on decision making. In U.-D. Reips & M. Bosnjak (Eds.),Dimensions of Internet science (pp. 23–55). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst.
Borowsky, R., &Besner, D. (1991). Visual word recognition across orthographies: On the interaction between context and degradation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 272–276.
Borowsky, R., &Besner, D. (1993). Visual word recognition: A multistage activation model.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 813–840.
Borowsky, R., &Besner, D. (2000). Lexical access codes in visual word recognition: Are the joint effects of context and stimulus quality diagnostic?Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,54, 196–207.
Chu, J. Y. M., Palya, W. L., &Walter, D. E. (1995). Creating a hypertext markup language document for an information server.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,27, 200–205.
Connine, C. M., Mullennix, J., Shernoff, E., &Yelen, J. (1990). Word familiarity and frequency in visual and auditory word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 1084–1096.
Doherty, M. E., &Keeley, S. M. (1972). On the identification of repeatedly presented brief visual stimuli.Psychological Bulletin,78, 142–154.
Eichstaedt, J. (2001). An inaccurate-timing filter for reaction time measurement by JAVA applets implementing Internet-based experiments.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,33, 179–186.
Eichstaedt, J. (2002). Measuring differences in pre-activation on the Internet: The content category superiority effect.Experimental Psychology,49, 283–291.
Eichstaedt, J., & Scheffer, D. (2005).Measuring implicit motives on the basis of word recognition latencies. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Eichstaedt, J., &Silvia, P. J. (2003). Noticing the self: Implicit assessment of self-focused attention using word recognition latencies.Social Cognition,21, 349–361.
Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., &Banaji, M. A. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: 1. An improved scoring algorithm.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,85, 197–216.
Keefe, D. E., &Neely, J. H. (1990). Semantic priming in the pronunciation task: The role of prospective prime-generated expectancies.Memory & Cognition,18, 289–298.
Kieley, J. M. (1996). CGI scripts: Gateways to World-Wide Web power.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,28, 165–169.
Klauer, K. C., Musch, J., &Naumer, B. (2000). On belief bias in syllogistic reasoning.Psychological Review,107, 852–884.
Krantz, J. H., Ballard, J., &Scher, J. (1997). Comparing the results of laboratory and World-Wide Web samples on the determinants of female attractiveness.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,29, 264–269.
Krantz, J. H., &Dalal, R. (2000). Validity of Web-based psychological research. In M. H. Birnbaum (Ed.),Psychological experiments on the Internet (pp. 35–60). San Diego: Academic Press.
Lewellen, M. J., Goldinger, S. D., Pisoni, D. B., &Greene, B. G. (1993). Lexical familiarity and processing efficiency: Individual differences in naming, lexical decision, and semantic categorization.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,122, 316–330.
Lorch, R. F., Jr.,Balota, D. A., &Stamm, E. G. (1986). Locus of inhibition effects in the priming of lexical decisions: Pre- or postlexical access?Memory & Cognition,14, 95–103.
MacLeod, C. M., &Kampe, K. E. (1996). Word frequency effects on recall, recognition, and word fragment completion tests.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 132–142.
Massaro, D. W., Jones, R. D., Lipscomb, C., &Scholz, R. (1978). Role of prior knowledge on naming and lexical decisions with good and poor stimulus information.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,4, 498–512.
McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., &Lowell, E. L. (1953).The achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
McClelland, J. L., &Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings.Psychological Review,88, 375–407.
McGraw, K. O., Tew, M. D., &Williams, J. E. (2000). The integrity of Web-delivered experiments: Can we trust the data?Psychological Science,11, 502–506.
Meyer, D. E., Schvaneveldt, R. W., &Ruddy, M. G. (1975). Loci of contextual effects on visual word recognition. In P. M. A. Rabbitt & S. Dornic (Eds.),Attention and performance V (pp. 98–118). New York: Academic Press.
Morrison, C. M., Ellis, A. W., &Quinlan, P. T. (1992). Age of acquisition, not word frequency, affects object naming, not object recognition.Memory & Cognition,20, 705–714.
Morton, J. (1969). Interaction of information in word recognition.Psychological Review,76, 165–178.
Neely, J. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In D. Besner & G. W. Humphreys (Eds.),Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 264–336). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Neely, J. H., Keefe, D. E., &Ross, K. L. (1989). Semantic priming in the lexical decision task: Roles of prospective prime-generated expectancies and retrospective semantic matching.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 1003–1019.
Norris, D. (1984). The effects of frequency, repetition and stimulus quality in visual word recognition.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,36A, 507–518.
O’Neil, K. M., &Penrod, S. D. (2001). Methodological variables in Web-based research that may affect results: Sample type, monetary incentives, and personal information.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,33, 226–233.
O’Neil, K. M., Penrod, S. D., &Bornstein, B. H. (2003). Web-based research: Methodological variables’ effects on dropout and sample characteristics.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,35, 217–226.
Paap, K. R., Newsome, S. L., McDonald, J. E., &Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1982). An activation-verification model for letter and word recognition: The word-superiority effect.Psychological Review,89, 573–594.
Reips, U.-D. (2000). The Web experiment method: Advantages, disadvantages, and solutions. In M. H. Birnbaum (Ed.),Psychological experiments on the Internet (pp. 89–114). San Diego: Academic Press.
Reips, U.-D. (2001). The Web Experimental Psychology Lab: Five years of data collection on the Internet.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,33, 201–211.
Reips, U.-D. (2002). Standards for Internet-based experimenting.Experimental Psychology,49, 243–256.
Scarborough, D. L., Cortese, C., &Scarborough, H. L. (1977). Frequency and repetition effects in lexical memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,3, 1–17.
Schmidt, W. C. (2001). Presentation accuracy of Web animation methods.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,33, 187–200.
Schwartz, A. (1998). Tutorial: Perl, a psychologically efficient reformatting language.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,30, 605–609.
Seidenberg, M. S., &McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming.Psychological Review,96, 523–568.
Silvia, P. J., &Eichstaedt, J. (2004). A self-novelty manipulation of self-focused attention for Internet and laboratory experiments.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,36, 325–330.
Silvia, P. J., Eichstaedt, J., &Phillips, A. G. (2005). Are rumination and reflection types of self-focused attention?Personality & Individual Differences,38, 871–881.
Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders’ method. In W. G. Koster (Ed.),Attention and performance II (pp. 276–315). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Stolz, J. A., &Neely, J. H. (1995). When target degradation does and does not enhance semantic context effects in word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 596–611.
Uyeda, K. M., &Mandler, G. (1980). Prototypicality norms for 28 semantic categories.Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation,12, 587–595.
Wilding, J. M. (1988). The interaction of word frequency and stimulus quality in the lexical decision task: Now you see it, now you don’t.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,40A, 757–770.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
I thank Franziska Scherer and Paul Silvia for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.
Note—This article was accepted by the previous editor, Jonathan Vaughan.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Eichstaedt, J. Magnifying effects on visual word recognition: A dynamic display for Internet-based experiments. Behavior Research Methods 37, 484–491 (2005). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192718
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192718